Archive for the 'Legislative' Category

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.

Well, it seemed time to start looking at the issues that will be on our November ballots, and I thought I should start at the beginning. A ballot issue is a bill from the legislature, that has been referred to the people of Montana to vote on in an election.

Just as a brush up on the formatting of bills, issues and initiatives, when something is underlined it is the new proposed language and when something is struck through, it is the language that is being eliminated from the laws.

Here we go with the language for C-44, which comes from Senate Bill No. 489, and is sponsored by Sen. Vicki Cocchiarella:

*******

AN ACT SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 13, OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW UP TO 25 PERCENT OF CERTAIN PUBLIC FUNDS TO BE INVESTED IN PRIVATE CORPORATE CAPITAL STOCK; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

Section 1. Article VIII, section 13, of The Constitution of the State of Montana is amended to read:
“Section 13. Investment of public funds and public retirement system and state compensation insurance fund assets. (1) The legislature shall provide for a unified investment program for public funds and public retirement system and state compensation insurance fund assets and provide rules therefor, including supervision of investment of surplus funds of all counties, cities, towns, and other local governmental entities. Each fund forming a part of the unified investment program shall be separately identified. Except as provided in subsections (3) and (4), no public up to 25 percent of public funds shall may be invested in private corporate capital stock in the same manner that a prudent expert acting in a fiduciary capacity and familiar with the circumstances would use. The investment program shall be audited at least annually and a report thereof submitted to the governor and legislature.
(2) The public school fund and the permanent funds of the Montana university system and all other state institutions of learning shall be safely and conservatively invested in:
(a) Public securities of the state, its subdivisions, local government units, and districts within the state, or
(b) Bonds of the United States or other securities fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by the United States, or
(c) Such other safe investments bearing a fixed rate of interest as may be provided by law. that a prudent expert acting in a fiduciary capacity and familiar with the circumstances would use in investing a fund guaranteed against loss or diversion.
(3) Investment of public retirement system assets shall be managed in a fiduciary capacity in the same manner that a prudent expert acting in a fiduciary capacity and familiar with the circumstances would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a similar character with similar aims. Public retirement system assets may be invested in private corporate capital stock, and the restrictions in subsection (1) on the percentage that may be invested in private capital stock do not apply.
(4) Investment of state compensation insurance fund assets shall be managed in a fiduciary capacity in the same manner that a prudent expert acting in a fiduciary capacity and familiar with the circumstances would use in the conduct of a private insurance organization. State compensation insurance fund assets may be invested in private corporate capital stock. However, the stock investments shall not exceed 25 percent of the book value of the state compensation insurance fund’s total invested assets.”

Section 2. Effective date. This amendment is effective upon approval by the electorate.

Section 3. Submission to electorate. This amendment shall be submitted to the qualified electors of Montana at the general election to be held in November 2008 by printing on the ballot the full title of this act and the following:
[] FOR allowing up to 25% of all public funds presently restricted to fixed income investments to be invested in private corporate capital stock.
[] AGAINST allowing up to 25% of all public funds presently restricted to fixed income investments to be invested in private corporate capital stock.
- END -

*******

I looked up the fiscal notes, and there are some pretty important points made.

The DNRC points out that Article X, Section 3 of the Montana Constitution says:
“Public school fund inviolate. The public school fund shall forever remain inviolate, guaranteed by the state against loss or diversion.” Putting money into the stock market could hardly be considered an experience that is immune to loss, if it was, everyone would invest without fear. Instead, any losses to the fund would have to be reimbursed to the fund by the state. So C-44 would come into conflict with the Montana Constitution.

The DNRC also points out that Section 17-6-201(2)(b) of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA) says: “other public funds may not be invested in private capital stock. “Private corporate capital stock” means only the common stock of a corporation.” So as the law stands today, only retirement funds are allowed to invest in capital stock, not any other public funds. C-44 would come into conflict with this part of the MCA.

I also delved a little deeper into the legislative history of C-44. This bill was introduced by Senator Vicki Cocchiarella, it was SB 489, and can be found under bill draft number LC1758. Perhaps the most interesting thing I have found yet regarding C-44, are the audio minutes from the February 21, 2007 hearing from Business, Labor and Economic Affairs.

Anything from Carroll Soth, Chief CEO, Board of Investments is fascinating. He starts at about 60 minutes into the recording, and the committee is discussing 3 different bills, all having to do with investments, and therefore the Board of Investments. (If you are curious, they were SB 467 (passed), SB 468 (died in committee) and SB 489 (onto November ballot for voters)).

At 1:38, Senator Balyeat asks Carroll South about investing the trust funds in equities rather than the current fixed income bonds, and refers to an exhibit passed out at the meeting; showing 80% invested in fixed income (bonds) and 20% in equities, showing that had the funds been invested such as Sen. Cocchiarella was suggesting, that there would be substantially more income to the funds. Sen. Balyeat rattles off quite a few different stock investment strategies, then talks about returns and risks. “Isn’t it the cardinal rule of investing that if you want to maximize the return to risk ratio, that you want to diversify as much as possible?” Carroll South replies at about 1:43 “these charts are probably right, . . . but they are only right if you don’t spend any of the capital gains, because in the equity world, that is where you make your money, you don’t make your money on dividends, you make your money on capital gains. And the idea is to sell those stocks, put the capital gains to work, and continue to build the fund. And you can’t do that if the legislature is going to spend all of the income.”

Terrill Moore, from First Interstate Bank and Chairman of the Board of Investments was asked his opinion regarding the bill, and while he hadn’t had a chance to read it, he said it was certainly doable, but he was concerned what would happen when the market turned down, and how those losses would affect the funds as a whole, and how those losses would be reconciled.

Then at 1:48 Senator Brown asked Senator Cocchiarella about the fact that there had been no proponents who got up and spoke in favor of her bills, and he wanted to know what her motivation was for proposing them. She spoke about oversight of the Board of Investments, and that they were not immune from scrutiny. Senator Cocchiarella also talked about the fact that she was going away, and that the other Senators were not (term limits), and she wanted to be sure that these issues were discussed before she left. She said that the rule of investing is diversity the best you can, and that presently public funds don’t have any diversity.
*******

Well, I guess here is where I stand right now. I don’t think diversifying our public funds into corporation stocks is a good idea at all. The stock market hasn’t been doing so hot lately, and even my money market account lost money last month after the account fees were subtracted. The idea that the legislature regularly pulls about 100 million a year out of the public fund profits, compared pulling about 100 million a year out of an equity, that the rate of return simply wouldn’t be worth the switch from bonds to equities when you think about risk and costs. Not to mention the fact that the passing this ballot issue would come into conflict with two other established laws. On the surface it seems simple, but when investing our public funds, I frankly think acting more conservatively is the right way to go.

It is official; Congressional Republicans have set a record for the most filibusters ever used in a single session of Congress, with a full year to go still!

Absolutely not. The 49-member Senate Republican minority has done something no Senate minority in American history has ever done: they’ve filibustered more bills than any Congress ever has — and they broke the record with a full year to spare.

The latest came this morning, when the Senate GOP filibustered an omnibus budget bill, the 62nd Republican filibuster since the 110th Congress began in January.

This should help structure the debate between those who have accused Liberals of hypocrisy when criticizing Republican Filibusters (since Democrats used the tool last session as well). While Democrats did indeed use this minority tool, it was never used to the degree we are now seeing with Republicans. Although the filibuster was originally meant to protect the minority, it is obvious that is has been reduced to an obstructionist tool; essentially, Senate bills need 60 votes to pass, instead of a simple majority.

Motivated to prevent President Bush from making any recess appointments, Senate majority Leader Harry Reid has decided that, technically speaking, the Senate will stay in session over Thanksgiving.

The sessions are expected to last less than 30 seconds — the clerk will announce who the presiding officer is, and then that senator will gavel the session closed.

The Constitution gives a president the power to fill vacancies without the Senate’s confirmation when the legislative body is in recess. Such appointees can serve without confirmation through the rest of the current session of Congress, which ends in January 2009.

You might remember John Bolton, the U.S. UN Ambassador who was installed through a recess appointment despite wide criticism of his intents.  It seems that is exactly the kind of incident Reid is trying to avoid by resorting to this parliamentary tactic, a move he has put into play because he has been told Bush was planning some Thanksgiving recess appointments.

Reid said the Bush administration had informed him that several recess appointments would be made during the Thanksgiving break. At the same time, Reid said the White House has been unwilling to confirm nominations Democratic leaders have made to agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

I, for one, am happy to see Reid going this route.  We have been complaining for quite some time that Congress needed to step up and take back some of its place in the balance of powers, and this is exactly what Reid is attempting to do here.

I guess sometimes you have to play a little dirty.

Counting commas…

I can’t even count the commas and zeros the government is talking about to fund the war in Iraq. The current physical year, August, September and October is some 196 Billion dollars and the President now wants an additional 46 Billion dollars as emergency funding to support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Of course this would have to by-pass the normal funding channels, which I highly doubt the Democrats (and many Republicans) will support that “open” checkbook. Also, please keep in mind the National debt – How many Trillion dollars?

The bottom line is too many commas and too many zeros for any average person to count or understand the enormity of $$$ being spent to fight what? Our freedom? It surely isn’t yours or mine.

The question to any of the hopeful candidates running for President would be – When and how would you stop all of this bloodletting?

Keep in mind that with this much money we could be solving a lot of families without insurance to insure their kids. With this much money we could have the resources needed to fight the raging fires throughout the United States. We could use this money to rebuild the New Orleans area from the throngs of Katrina. Need one go on?

The time is NOW my friends. We cannot let this to continue with no end in sight. We must take care of number one (us) before we can even begin to think about number 2, 3, 4.

I want to say thanks to Senator Dodd in advance for this: Senator Dodd Announces He Will Stop Telecom Immunity Bill.

Connecticut Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd has vowed to put a hold on a Senate bill that reportedly would grant retroactive legal protection to any phone or internet company that helped with the president’s secret, warrantless wiretapping program, Dodd announced via email and on his presidential campaign website Thursday.

Dodd’s surprise, pre-emptive strike is extraordinary, since the proposed bill has not yet even been formally introduced. The Senate Intelligence Committee is marking up the bill in a closed hearing. Under Senate rules, any Senator can block legislation from reaching the floor for a vote, but it’s a move that is usually done secretly and it can easily anger colleagues and is generally sparingly used.

Call it obstructionism if you will, but it is a move that Republican’s have already used several times this session. I would also point to Bush’s statement in yesterday’s press conference:

Bush said his veto pen was “one way to ensure that I am relevant; that’s one way to ensure that I am in the process. And I intend to use the veto.”

Dodd is making the right move. Just like soldiers are tasked to only follow lawful orders, the telecom industry should not get immunity if they illegally violated our privacy laws by providing data in response to illegal government requests. We already know that Verizon have fulfilled government requests at an amazing rate:

In an October 12 letter to members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, a senior Verizon official says that from 2005 through this September there were 63,700 such requests, and of those, 720 came from federal authorities.

We need to find out what the hell is going on before we provide blanket immunity.

I am sure that the blogs are completley covering the abdication of the Attorney General’s seat by Alberto Gonzales today.  One Win.

The Republicans, I mean the insiders, got together this weekend and decided (72 to 14, yeah 96 people decided for you) that they don’t care about their party members and loyalists don’t matter to them, only the “up to 3,000″ or so party officials votes matter.  Don’t bother to show up at the primary, the decision will be made for you on February 5, 2008, as to who will represent the Republicans in the Presidential Race of 2008.  *Pats on head* You poor ignorant voter.  Just vote for who we have already decided is the best candidate.  You don’t know enough to vote for yourself.  Time to defect?  One Loss.

Why should you Hold Onto Your Hats?  Well, I might be remembered as someone who did some in-depth coverage of the initiatives last election season.  (Toot Toot).  The infamous Trio of Doom (CI-97, CI-98, and I-154 (which Wulfgar covered much better than I did)).

So I sit here today, and I see that the Governor has called a Special Session of the Legislature to appropriate funds from our savings to cover the costs of this fire season.  I have choked on smoke for the past couple of months; not being able to see the Sleeping Giant, or the Valley, and on the terrible days, even Mount Helena; the time has come to address the issue. 

Why does this come to mind?  Well CI-97, Stop Over Spending Montana, had it not been thrown out of the Courts as unconstitutional, would have left all us Montanans swimming in smoke.  We would have had to wait until the next statewide election, to vote in some money to deal with the issue.  Wait, when is the next statewide election?  Oh yeah, choke on that Montanans.

“Rumor has it” (the name of a game created by an old friend) that Howie Rich will be back in action in the election season of 2008.  Whether or not he trusts Trevis Butcher with it again, or can find anyone to support him remains to be seen.  Unfortunately, I know he will be back, trying to shove his ideas down Montanan’s throats again.  You heard it here first.  Hang Onto Your Hats, and remember to watch what is going on.  Better yet, look at things as they might have been had Montanans passed that proposed initiative.  Now do you understand?

Things will be more complicated this time, as I am headed to law school, but I promise to maintain my contacts, and keep fighting the good fight in the name of truth.

The Senate voted to expand SChips on Thursday evening. Though Bush has threatened to veto the bill in the past, it was passed with a super-majority vote. Why? Well, most people in this country support universal health insurance, at a super-majority rate of 2 to 1. You can imagine that they sure as hell support healthcare for children.

Senators Jon Tester and Max Baucus both came out in support of the bill. I commend them on taking this important step for Montanan’s. Why is it so important to Montana? Only half of the employers in Montana offer health coverage and this leaves a lot of kids at risk.

The average cost of a family health plan on the open market in Montana is about $8,000 per year, Baucus said. That’s about a fifth of the income of a family of four making twice the poverty level, or $41,300.
-
“CHIP offers affordable, comprehensive health coverage for working families,” Baucus said. “CHIP works and has helped thousands of Montana families.”
-
The 2007 Montana Legislature increased the family income eligibility cutoff for CHIP from 150 percent of the federal poverty level to 175 percent. That’s a yearly income of just more than $36,000 for a family of four, Baucus said. That change will add 2,000 children next year, he said.

Rehberg, on the other hand did not vote for the house version of the bill. Why?

U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg on Wednesday voted against House Democrats’ bill to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP, saying it’s based on an “extremist political ideology” to expand government-run health care.

By this line of thought, the American people follow “extremist political ideology” by a margin of 2 to 1? 66% of American’s are ‘extremists’?

In typical fashion, Dennis Rehberg wants to have it both ways, saying that he supports Chips, but does not support funding it. Additionally, he goes on to say that he did not vote to fund it because it would hurt senior citizens?

The House version funds the SCHIP expansion by increasing tobacco taxes and cutting $194 billion from the “Medicare Advantage” program, which are government payments to private insurance companies selling additional coverage plans for senior citizens on Medicare.
-
The federal government generally reimburses insurance companies for those payments. Congressional budget officials have said the government is overpaying private companies for the costs.
-
Rehberg said using the Medicare money to fund the SCHIP expansion is pitting senior citizens against kids in a battle for health care, and that 16,000 Montanans get coverage through Medicare Advantage.

The only problem with this logic is that the bill doesn’t take money from old people, it forces the ‘private insurance companies’ to stop bilking the government out of millions.

A Montana spokeswoman for AARP, the consumer group representing people 50 and over, said the group is “disappointed” with Rehberg’s vote. The measure actually strengthens Medicare programs for low-income seniors and reduces “excess payments” to private Medicare Advantage plans, said Pat Callbeck-Harper.

Thank you Jon Tester and Max Baucus for putting Montanan’s first. Dennis, I hope the insurance companies appreciate your work. Now we know where you all stand.

[Update 0] An interesting factoid on this one: According to MyDD, over half the GOP senators up for re-election this year voted against SChip. Hmmm.

I haven’t been reading Missoulapolis for very long; having only discovered it through various blogrolls about a week ago. Besides the non-hierarchal comments section that comes from being a Blogspot blog, Carol’s site is a pretty interesting read, especially since I am always on the look out for Conservative-minded sites that have regular postings.

Yesterday, she put up a post relating to a William Sumner essay entitled “The Forgotten Man”. While Carol’s post is largely quoting from that essay, she does introduce a related point near the end that I would like to discuss here. Dave also caught this and had a little something to add at his own site.

First off, the basis for all of this comes from a algebra-esque analogy Sumner gives for societal decisions:

The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C’s interests, are entirely overlooked.That’s the Forgotten Man.

Basically, Sumner’s theory says that a problem of our society is that our decision-makers are normally not stakeholders in the decisions. Furthermore, the effect of such decisions seems to fall mostly on those who didn’t have a say in the decision to begin with. Of course, it is the hypothesis of C’s exclusion from the decision that has both Carol and Dave pointing to it eagerly as an ill of our times. As Dave says:

it’s a [sic] true today as it was when it was written in 1916.

Carol’s own enthusiasm about this presentation is shown when she presents a new applicaiton of Sumner’s theory:

Now, just substitute “non-shooter” for A and and “gun-hater” for B, “law-abiding gun owner” for C, and “violent criminal” for D. It works!

It probably works for other things too.

Now there are countless holes in the logic here, but I want to focus specifically on two of them: that A and B are not (at least in Carol’s gun example) official policy makers in our society, and that in our country, C is directly responsible for the establishment of A and B.

Let’s start off with Carol’s gun example. An application of Sumner’s logic would seem to suggest that non-shooters and gun-haters make decisions forcing the law-abiding gun owner to forfeit his legal weapons as a response to violent criminals. She is attempting to say that the citizens of our country who don’t shoot, or who hate, guns are the ones making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to own guns. This is an inaccurate representation. Ordinary Americans who don’t like guns are not in a direct position to legislate to their own beliefs; they have to go through the decision making mechanism we have in place. So, if anything D should represent the non-shooters and gun-haters, as the decision is getting made (in her example) on their behalf.

I agree with Carol’s statement that gun users are represented by C, but being that legislation is universally applied, C must represent all users of guns, not just legal ones. There is no law that says only legal gun users may not use guns; even if that is sometimes the end results of law. Of course, in this new scenario A and B are the politicians who most directly affect our legal decision making process. So, immediately the blame for the situation shifts.

As to the second point, A and B serve at the discretion of C and D. Both the legal gun owner and the non-shooter have the ability to affect the decision making process, so neither of them is ‘forgotten’ in any way. They are represented in a majority-rules system, and thus when either finds him/herself in the minority they take on the appearance of ‘forgotten’, due to their diminished ability to affect change. What I don’t like in Carol and Dave’s suggestion is the implicit cynicism about the ability for the common man (arguably represented in one fashion or another by C and D) to affect change in his world.  It is easy to throw stones such as this and say the system is broken, or that the government sucks, but as Wulfgar likes to point out, the government is us.

We are the ones, indirectly at worst, who make these decisions; the kind of decisions that Carol is lamenting as made for us.  Of course, there are any number of actions which any perceived ‘forgotten’ individual can pursue in order to balance that system: registering voters, volunteering for a group with like-minded goals, etc. In a representative system, that is how it should work. At the end of the day, if C is ‘forgotten’, he has no one to blame but himself…

Senate Democrats followed through with a threat to cut Cheney’s funding in response to a fight over his belief that his office isn’t part of the Executive branch of government.

A Senate appropriations panel chaired by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., refused to fund $4.8 million in the vice president’s budget until Cheney’s office complies with parts of an executive order governing its handling of classified information.

At issue is a requirement that executive branch offices provide data on how much material they classify and declassify. That information is to be provided to the Information Security Oversight Office at The National Archives.

It will be interesting to see how this one plays out. However, my favorite part of the article, and thus the situation, was what Sam Brownback had to say about the move:

Such a step, said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., would set a terrible precedent in relations between the executive and legislative branches of government, which have historically let each other set their own budgets.

“This is going to further erode any sort of working relationship back and forth,” Brownback said. “This is a patently bad idea.”

Where has Brownback been for the last 6 years? Does he actually think there is any semblance of good relations between Congress and the President anymore? Unless utter defiance and a refusal to compromise are signs of a ‘good working relationship’, I’d have to say that ship sailed years ago.

From side-stepping FISA courts to refusing to release requested documentation, it has been this President’s unwavering expansion of executive power that has most assailed the democratic roots of our country. And although it seems that every day brings with it a new innovation in Mr. Bush’s misuse of his office, one of the most recurring abuses of executive privilege under this President has been his use of signing statements.

Finally, after over six years and 1,000 Presidential challenges via signing statements, someone wants to do something about it, and he’s a Republican. Last Friday, Senator Arlen Specter introduced the Presidential Signing Statement Act of 2007, which seeks to reign in this most unpredictable and easily abused element of executive power. Specter makes several clear observations about why this legislation is necessary:

• Recently, some courts have begun using presidential signing statements as a source of authority in the interpretation of Acts of Congress.
• This judicial use of presidential signing statements is inappropriate, because it in effect gives these statements the force of law.
• The Supreme Court’s reliance on presidential signing statements has been sporadic and unpredictable.

It doesn’t take a Constitutional scholar to explain the issue with these statements. The Constitution provides a clear framework for the creation and passage of legislation; complete with a wide array of checks and balances. Signing statements circumvent this process, allowing the Presidential to apply legislation as he sees fit. This is a dangerous loophole, and Specter, rightly so, is looking to patch it. His legislation wouldn’t remove the ability for a President to issue signing statements, which have a history far before George W. Bush; it ensures that such statements don’t disproportionately influence future legal decisions.

It does so in two ways:

SEC. 4. JUDICIAL USE OF PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS.
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, no Federal or State court shall rely on or defer to a presidential signing statement as a source of authority.

Simply put, since signing statements are the personal opinions of one person (not even the person charged with creating legislation), they can be inaccurate in their explanation of how to apply such laws. Specter’s bill would ensure that they are no longer used as a base for future judicial decisions. In its place, he proposes the ability for Congress to clarify, when necessary, the meaning of legislation.

SEC. 5. CONGRESSIONAL RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN COURT PROCEEDINGS OR SUBMIT CLARIFYING RESOLUTION.

(a) Congressional Right To Participate as Amicus Curiae

(b) Congressional Right To Submit Clarifying Resolution

It makes sense to assume that a signing statement, being what it is, indicates that the law in question is vague or ambiguous. Otherwise, a signing statement wouldn’t be necessary. These two sections detail Congress’s rights following the issuance of a signing statement. Section (a) says that when an act’s constitutionality is in question, Congress can participate in that decision via legal counsel. Section (b) allows Congress to clarify the intent of ambiguous legislation when it is in question. Of course, those are very high-level explanations, and I urge you to read the full text of the bill for yourself.

I hope no matter which side of the aisle you stand on, you can see the problems these statements can present, for members of either political party. We all need to make sure the mechanisms laid out in our Constitution are preserved. And while this legislation might be seen as an attempt to curtail President Bush specifically, presidential signing statement abuse is a problem that needs addressing, for this president and those yet to come.

The First:

It looks like a couple of airlines stuck their fingers (aka their Senators) into a supplemental spending bill to support their pension issues without the knowledge of the heads of the committee reviewing the legislation (Mr. Baucus’ Finance Committee). I’d also surmise that the heads of the committee were not the only Senators who were in the dark regarding the added language. Nothing builds confidence in government more than the discovery that bills are being passed without anyone paying attention to what’s in them.

The Second:

The journalist who wrote the piece my need a little help with the definition of ‘perilous’:

Ignoring a member of Congress can be perilous, particularly when it involves two ornery senators not given their due.
[snip]
To punish the companies, the senators are forcing them to provide extensive information on their pension and compensation plans. But after that, their options for reprisal may be limited.

We take this break from regularly scheduled LSAT preparation study time to bring you the following breaking news report: (deet deet deet deet dee dee deet)

***********************************

I just couldn’t sit still while studying tonight, and when I got out to my car, I heard “We have Shane from Helena on” *hat tip* and I will let him tell his own story.  On to mine.

Earlier in the day, I had read an article in the Missoulian:

If Schweitzer sets the special session for within seven days of the end of the regular session, which was Friday, its one-time setup costs are $20,000, she said. These one-time setup costs rise to $65,000 if Schweitzer brings legislators back more than seven days after the regular session concludes.

about the costs of starting up the special session.  Seeing as the Governor is the man with the calling to session power, I wondered what he would have to say about the issue.

So I called up YPR, and said that I had seen the article above, and asked him “What are the benefits for starting the special session on Monday, as opposed to the benefits for starting it at a later date?”

As I dove across my kitchen to turn my radio back up to hear his answer, I heard him saying you just have to allow time.  He pointed out that it would be penny wise and pound foolish to bring people back to Helena immediately at the cost of about $38,000 per legislative day, when tempers hadn’t simmered down enough to be able to have civil discussion.  Allow the legislators some time outside of Helena, working together, getting some ideas going, and coming close to a consensus prior to being called back to Helena for the special session.

What a great way to think of it, and very wise in my opinion. 

Don’t forget to contact your legislators, from both sides of the aisle, and remind them that while we don’t always agree, their jobs as legislators is to find the common ground and get a budget passed.

***********************************

*Returns to the Logic Reasoning Bible, sigh*

Okay, not exactly, but apparently the state of Utah is considering legislation that would classify me as someone who does anyhow. You see, I live in a remote area near Bozeman/Belgrade, and since I am often playing with new technology and their internet-connectivity, I never bothered to password-protect my wireless router. By all means, if you wish to enjoy some slow-but-free internet, just drive your happy self down the dirt roads to my secluded house and enjoy. But apparently, according to law professor Cheryl Preston, my ‘unprotected’ connection is a threat to the moral fabric of our youth, or at the least the youth of Utah:

The proposal comes from an Internet law professor at BYU. Cheryl Preston has developed several proposals designed to keep kids from seeing porn on the Web. Today, legislators began considering Preston’s proposals.

Under her proposal, anyone who unintentionally failed to block access to their network would be fined. While, intentionally leaving a network open to minors would be considered the same as publishing pornography.

Let me again emphasize that my wireless router would be the “same as publishing pornography” .

Why all the trouble?

Because my unprotected router would be accessible by minors “driving around in search of a wireless Internet connection to look at pornography”.

Wow!

And we here in Montana thought the mandatory bathroom towels was a good one…