The House and Senate have introduced versions of the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.00185:. Except for the one Republican co-sponser, the Senate version was voted upon along party lines. From the same Republican party that voted against a bill some years back that was a modern-day restatement of the Bill of Rights. Of course, the Democrats aren't much better and traditionally have been very willing to hold a gun to your head and demand you hand over your wallet so they can give your money to their political constituents. Oh, wait, the Republicans seem to have surpassed the Dems even on this front! What a time we live in.
Anyway, I would go a step further. Attorney General Gonzalez had the gumption in January of this year to state that the right to a Habeas Corpus petition/hearing is not expressly in the Constitution. Well, in a sense he is correct, but not in any meaningful way. The Constitution's "Suspension Clause" states that the right to Habeas Corpus may not be taken away except under a few circumstances. In other words, the framers of the U.S. Constitution recognized the pre-existing body of English Common Law. Of course, reviewing nearly 800 years of cases dealing with the right of Habeas Corpus is too tedious a task for those in the Administration. My suggestion is that we make it simple for them, and in such a way as to leave no doubt.
In the section dealing with Impeachment, the Constitution states,
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." (Quoted from the website http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2)
Now, it does not expressly state that a concurrence of three-quarters of the members present is also sufficient for conviction. It does not expressly state that that a conviction requires a vote of two-thirds or more. It does not expressly state that a vote of at least two-thirds is required. So, if President Bush were to be impeached and tried in the Senate, and if 80 Senators voted to convict, I imagine Attorney General Gonzalez would be right there arguing that '...the conviction was not valid because the Constitution expressly states that the vote to convict must be two-thirds, which of course means no more and no less than two-thirds".
Of course, with this kind of logic, you could NEVER convict on articles of impeachment if all 100 Senators are present to vote on the conviction because two-thirds of 100 is 66.6666666666, and I do not know how you can have a 0.666 of a Senator (although some of the very, very old ones up there ....never mind).
While I'm at it, I'd suggest fixing a few other things more or less permanently. But how, you ask.
Constitutional Amendments, of course. I am the first person to say that Amendments should not be taken lightly and that the Constitution should be tinkered with only as a last resort. I think we have reached that point. We had a US Citizen arrested within a US State being held indefinitely without charges merely on the whim of the President. We have legally present aliens who have been rounded up and imprisoned indefinitely without charges. We have a Supreme Court and Appellate Courts that, until recently, have shown deference to the Administration on these issues. But the Courts, I think, need something a little more clear and definite than merely sound reason and historical precedent upon which to hang their hats. They need a bright line statement of what the right is, who has the right, and that rose by any other name would smell as sweet....in other words, that merely changing the name of a thing does not change the thing itself so that we don't end up with another mess like "illegal combatant" "illegal enemy combatant" "enemy combatant" and "prisoner of war".
What should Amendments say? Usually, the less they say, the better. I think we'd need at least two; one to deal with Habeas Corpus and one to clarify that the Vice Presidency belongs in the Executive Branch (which is just so stupid that I don't think I'll award points for creativity on that argument).
Perhaps I'll draft some proposed Amendments and float them for input?
damackay
Friday, June 29, 2007
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Wisconsin's Lame Driver's License Requirements
It seems to me that Wisconsin as over reacted to the federal "Real ID" legislation. Actually, I think they over reacted to the news articles and blogs in which Wisconsin was held in ridicule for having very lax standards with pronouncements like, "Osama Bin Laden could get a license or ID card in Wisconsin." While the old standards were lax compared to many states, the new standards are far too cumbersome.
I went to get my driver's license today. I was told I could not get one. I brought the only original bank statement I have available to prove my residency in Wisconsin, but it was not good enough because (1) it did not cover a period of 30 days {it was shorter because I had just opened it and I guess this bank keeps everyone on the same cycle?}; and (2) it only showed my initial deposit into the account {it's new, what can I say?}, no "activity".
I have another account that I moved from another state to the same bank chain in Wisconsin, but I don't get "original" statements on that account because I get them electronically. You know, the way that every bank on the planet begs you to take your statements because it's cheaper, easier, faster and reduces paper usage and waste. Not good enough for Wisconsin.
I told the woman at the window I'd either have to pay $$ to get a reprint of a previous statement, or I'd have to change my preferences and just wait for the balance of the cycle for another statement to be printed and mailed to me, by which time I might be in violation of Wisconsin law requiring me to obtain a license within 60 days of establishing residency.
Of course, based on the new requirements, I suppose one could argue that they have NOT established "residency" if they haven't opened an account at a Wisconsin bank AND they have not obtained in utilities in their name (WARNING - the DMV will NOT accept cable television bills). Apparently leasing an apartment in Wisconsin may not establish residency since the lease itself isn't good enough to prove your residence to the DMV.
I share this apartment with two other guys. One has the cable TV in his name (the bill for which isn't good enough anyway) and the electricity/gas bill is in the other's name. We have VoIP telephone service (not through Charter) for which I don't even get a bill, although I could print one out if I needed it (again, not good enough - the bills cannot be ones that you print out from a computer, unless of course you ARE the utility company printing the bill out on YOUR computer). So, I am not going to have a utility bill in my name to prove my residency in Wisconsin.
I haven't read all the rules, but I assume that the State has made an allowance for minors who get learners permits and then licenses - if they are living with parents or guardians it is HIGHLY unlikely that they have utilities in their names. It is also less than certain that they will have a bank account. HHhhhhmmmm, I guess the fact that their licensed parent is somehow vouching for them and this is good enough?
Also, please note that a residential lease is NOT on the list of documents that can be used to prove Wisconsin residency. Certain papers from the purchase of a Wisconsin residence are sufficient, but make darn sure you have EXACTLY what is called for on the list:
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/drivers/apply/doc/proof-resident.htm
Also, remember to look at the other requirements for the DMV. You also have to prove your legal right be in the United States (certified birth certificate or US Passports work (the DMV's handbook states a "certified passport" is required, but I think this is an error as the website simply says "US Passport").
In short, if you come to Wisconsin and:
* you are not employed locally
* you don't open a local bank account and use it for a month
* you don't have any utilities in your name
* you aren't going to school
* you haven't bought a house
* you aren't receiving government assistance
then you aren't getting a local driver's license.
That's fine. I'll keep my $18 for the class D plus my $12 for the class M and I'll keep my old license from the other state. Wisconsin can keep their piece of plastic. I'll be less inclined to register my vehicle here as well when the time comes. It's registered in another state and I think it'll just stay that way.
Frankly, Madison is a lovely town, but there are an awful lot of negatives about living here. Perhaps I'll be leaving shortly anyway, so there's not much point in establishing residency now, eh?
I went to get my driver's license today. I was told I could not get one. I brought the only original bank statement I have available to prove my residency in Wisconsin, but it was not good enough because (1) it did not cover a period of 30 days {it was shorter because I had just opened it and I guess this bank keeps everyone on the same cycle?}; and (2) it only showed my initial deposit into the account {it's new, what can I say?}, no "activity".
I have another account that I moved from another state to the same bank chain in Wisconsin, but I don't get "original" statements on that account because I get them electronically. You know, the way that every bank on the planet begs you to take your statements because it's cheaper, easier, faster and reduces paper usage and waste. Not good enough for Wisconsin.
I told the woman at the window I'd either have to pay $$ to get a reprint of a previous statement, or I'd have to change my preferences and just wait for the balance of the cycle for another statement to be printed and mailed to me, by which time I might be in violation of Wisconsin law requiring me to obtain a license within 60 days of establishing residency.
Of course, based on the new requirements, I suppose one could argue that they have NOT established "residency" if they haven't opened an account at a Wisconsin bank AND they have not obtained in utilities in their name (WARNING - the DMV will NOT accept cable television bills). Apparently leasing an apartment in Wisconsin may not establish residency since the lease itself isn't good enough to prove your residence to the DMV.
I share this apartment with two other guys. One has the cable TV in his name (the bill for which isn't good enough anyway) and the electricity/gas bill is in the other's name. We have VoIP telephone service (not through Charter) for which I don't even get a bill, although I could print one out if I needed it (again, not good enough - the bills cannot be ones that you print out from a computer, unless of course you ARE the utility company printing the bill out on YOUR computer). So, I am not going to have a utility bill in my name to prove my residency in Wisconsin.
I haven't read all the rules, but I assume that the State has made an allowance for minors who get learners permits and then licenses - if they are living with parents or guardians it is HIGHLY unlikely that they have utilities in their names. It is also less than certain that they will have a bank account. HHhhhhmmmm, I guess the fact that their licensed parent is somehow vouching for them and this is good enough?
Also, please note that a residential lease is NOT on the list of documents that can be used to prove Wisconsin residency. Certain papers from the purchase of a Wisconsin residence are sufficient, but make darn sure you have EXACTLY what is called for on the list:
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/drivers/apply/doc/proof-resident.htm
Also, remember to look at the other requirements for the DMV. You also have to prove your legal right be in the United States (certified birth certificate or US Passports work (the DMV's handbook states a "certified passport" is required, but I think this is an error as the website simply says "US Passport").
In short, if you come to Wisconsin and:
* you are not employed locally
* you don't open a local bank account and use it for a month
* you don't have any utilities in your name
* you aren't going to school
* you haven't bought a house
* you aren't receiving government assistance
then you aren't getting a local driver's license.
That's fine. I'll keep my $18 for the class D plus my $12 for the class M and I'll keep my old license from the other state. Wisconsin can keep their piece of plastic. I'll be less inclined to register my vehicle here as well when the time comes. It's registered in another state and I think it'll just stay that way.
Frankly, Madison is a lovely town, but there are an awful lot of negatives about living here. Perhaps I'll be leaving shortly anyway, so there's not much point in establishing residency now, eh?
Friday, June 8, 2007
Political Reality
A couple of days ago I heard a news story on the radio ... ok, not just any radio, it was XM and it was Air America, probably the Rachel Maddo Show. The story was that a survey of some kind had been completed that showed that only about 20% (maybe less) of Americans now consider themselves to be "Republicans". The flip side was that those who consider themselves to be Democrats was a higher number but not nearly as high as you might think. The upshot was that there were a LOT of people who did not consider themselves to be part of either party.
Do I smell Third Party? Frankly, the desire for a third choice has been strongly with us for a LONG time.
What percentage of votes was Ross Perot pulling in 1992? Now, it seems whenever I hear Perot mentioned in any discussion someone inevitably tries to dismiss him as a kook and/or jokes about his ears and/or someone starts imitating his voice while saying kooky things. WHY is that? Why do I seldom hear a discussion about how many votes he actually received?? He got 18.9% of the popular vote. He actually beat Bush Senior in Maine by a hair. He beat Clinton in Utah by more than a hair. And this was after he dropped out of the race for a time and then re-entered, claiming that Republican operatives had tried to interfere with his daughter's wedding. The wedding story was widely discussed as evidence that Perot was mentally unstable or just a plain, old liar. Knowning what we now know about Bush Jr-style Republican tactics, perhaps Perot's wedding story was just a sign of things to come? Perhaps Perot was trying to tell the truth about what happened without too many gory details? Maybe there was a true and more sinister aspect to the wedding story that Perot believed the American people would simply not believe if he told it and that is why the story didn't make much sense at the time?
Back to the point. A third political party.
"But Don, we already HAVE a bunch of other political parties. Why do we need another?"
Perot's party was the Reform Party and it was all about him. To my knowledge it did not exist before Perot's candidacy. Why is that? Why didn't Perot rise up through an existing party? I believe the answer is simple, but it also explains both the Democrat and Republican party flirtations with fringe elements in society.
These third parties (i.e. Libertarian, Green, Peace and Freedom) do not have a large enough "base" to win a Presidential election. They rarely have a large enough base to win U.S. House or Senate seats. (A "base" is the collection of persons who virtually always vote for the party's candidates regardless of the candidates' specific positions on issues.)
Why is that? To have a large base today the party has to meet one or the other, or both, of the following criteria. (1) the party has a platform and/or candidates that are widely visible and widely appealing; and/or (2) the party has obtained a large base in the past as a result of the first criteria and that base continues to vote with the party for any number of reasons regardless of the current platform and/or candidates (i.e. habit, feeling of belonging to a group, lack of a appealing alternative, feelings of loyalty).
Only the Democrats and Republicans meet criteria number 2. The other parties have not yet met criteria number 1, and none of them seem likely to do so in the near future.
In other words, the current crop of "alternative" political parties just do not have a platform or candidates that are appealing to a large section of the public. They just don't, end of story. Of course, a party could always turn up with an incredibly appealing candidate that could catapult the party to national success (if the Democrat and Republican operatives aren't successful in sabatoging that candidate - and don't believe for a second that they would not try). Failing that, our current crop are themselves too "fringy". Libertarians come off as too erudite and untouchable in their ivory towers. Greens come off as one step away from anarchists. Peace and Freedom makes people think of pot-smoking hippies (whether or not it is true).
The Libertarians ran an interesting questionnaire (which may still be available on their website. I'm not promoting any of them in this article, so you'll have to go find it yourself if you are interested!). It seems that nearly everybody who answers all the questions discovers that they are much more aligned philosophically the Libertarian party than they realized.
Why, then, don't the Libertarians have a candidate for the Presidency with serious chance at winning? Back to criteria #1 - visibility and appeal of the platform. And the same goes for the other also-ran parties. Visibility and appeal.
Again, using the Libertarians as an example: how many Americans would be for open borders? The Libertarian party is. Of course, the Libertarian view on this and many other issues does not work in isolation. You can't have Libertarian open borders without also having Libertarian abolishment of Medicaid and Medicare, and how many people are willing to let grandma fend for herself without Medicare at this point? To say the least, Libertarian-style government would have to be VERY carefully phased in over a long period of time to avoid disaster. It would obliterate many pet projects and upset many apple carts. When it comes right down to it, so many influential people would be so upset by it that I doubt it will get off the ground in my lifetime or in the next generations lifetime.
In other words, influential people would be inclined to suppress it (visibility), and many others would simply not be for it when it hurts grandma (wide appeal).
OK, so what about the base for the Democrats and Republicans? They are not doing so well in the criteria #1 department. Mostly I see them riding on the coattails of those who built their parties up before them - criteria #2. Their bases are dwindling. Fewer and fewer people are voting Republican or Democrat "because their daddy did". More and more people are feeling disenfranchised by both parties because the parties are not living up to their promises and/or peoples' expectations of them. At least some "values" organizations cannot be too thrilled with violations of law that are being revealed in the Republican administration on a daily basis. "Lefty" organizations cannot be very happy with Democrats like Ted Kennedy who seem so beholden to big-money pharmacy interests that they'll take away people's right to use herbs and alternative medicines.
So, with ever weakening bases, they two main parties find themselves flirting with fringe elements in society to try to win elections. Most obvious may be the Republicans appearing to align themselves with the likes of the Moral Majority and Focus on the Family. Perhaps less obvious is the Democrats appearing to align themselves with gay interest organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign.
I believe that a great many people are ready for a party that they believe represents THEIR interests. I believe that a majority of the population believes the following and would like to see a new party that addresses these issues:
1. Most elected officials at the national level are bought and paid for by corporations.
2. Most elected officials at the national level are more interested in winning the next campaign than doing the job that they were elected to do.
3. Most elected officials at the national level spend far too much time on issues of little importance to the majority of Americans (i.e. abortion, gay rights, prayer in schools).
4. Most elected officials at the national level see the American public as an endless supply of cash to fund pet projects or hand out to their friends.
5. Most elected officials at the national level don't give a damn about being honest with the public.
6. Most elected officials at the national level see themselves as "special" and as those who elected them as "common".
7. Most elected officials at the national level have proven themselves as willing to mortgage America's future in an effort to bolster the bottom line of a few mega-corporations.
8. Most elected officials at the national level (from BOTH parties) are willing to sacrifice individual rights and ignore the Constitution anytime it serves their own agenda.
If a new political party came on the scene that addressed these issues, look out.
Do I smell Third Party? Frankly, the desire for a third choice has been strongly with us for a LONG time.
What percentage of votes was Ross Perot pulling in 1992? Now, it seems whenever I hear Perot mentioned in any discussion someone inevitably tries to dismiss him as a kook and/or jokes about his ears and/or someone starts imitating his voice while saying kooky things. WHY is that? Why do I seldom hear a discussion about how many votes he actually received?? He got 18.9% of the popular vote. He actually beat Bush Senior in Maine by a hair. He beat Clinton in Utah by more than a hair. And this was after he dropped out of the race for a time and then re-entered, claiming that Republican operatives had tried to interfere with his daughter's wedding. The wedding story was widely discussed as evidence that Perot was mentally unstable or just a plain, old liar. Knowning what we now know about Bush Jr-style Republican tactics, perhaps Perot's wedding story was just a sign of things to come? Perhaps Perot was trying to tell the truth about what happened without too many gory details? Maybe there was a true and more sinister aspect to the wedding story that Perot believed the American people would simply not believe if he told it and that is why the story didn't make much sense at the time?
Back to the point. A third political party.
"But Don, we already HAVE a bunch of other political parties. Why do we need another?"
Perot's party was the Reform Party and it was all about him. To my knowledge it did not exist before Perot's candidacy. Why is that? Why didn't Perot rise up through an existing party? I believe the answer is simple, but it also explains both the Democrat and Republican party flirtations with fringe elements in society.
These third parties (i.e. Libertarian, Green, Peace and Freedom) do not have a large enough "base" to win a Presidential election. They rarely have a large enough base to win U.S. House or Senate seats. (A "base" is the collection of persons who virtually always vote for the party's candidates regardless of the candidates' specific positions on issues.)
Why is that? To have a large base today the party has to meet one or the other, or both, of the following criteria. (1) the party has a platform and/or candidates that are widely visible and widely appealing; and/or (2) the party has obtained a large base in the past as a result of the first criteria and that base continues to vote with the party for any number of reasons regardless of the current platform and/or candidates (i.e. habit, feeling of belonging to a group, lack of a appealing alternative, feelings of loyalty).
Only the Democrats and Republicans meet criteria number 2. The other parties have not yet met criteria number 1, and none of them seem likely to do so in the near future.
In other words, the current crop of "alternative" political parties just do not have a platform or candidates that are appealing to a large section of the public. They just don't, end of story. Of course, a party could always turn up with an incredibly appealing candidate that could catapult the party to national success (if the Democrat and Republican operatives aren't successful in sabatoging that candidate - and don't believe for a second that they would not try). Failing that, our current crop are themselves too "fringy". Libertarians come off as too erudite and untouchable in their ivory towers. Greens come off as one step away from anarchists. Peace and Freedom makes people think of pot-smoking hippies (whether or not it is true).
The Libertarians ran an interesting questionnaire (which may still be available on their website. I'm not promoting any of them in this article, so you'll have to go find it yourself if you are interested!). It seems that nearly everybody who answers all the questions discovers that they are much more aligned philosophically the Libertarian party than they realized.
Why, then, don't the Libertarians have a candidate for the Presidency with serious chance at winning? Back to criteria #1 - visibility and appeal of the platform. And the same goes for the other also-ran parties. Visibility and appeal.
Again, using the Libertarians as an example: how many Americans would be for open borders? The Libertarian party is. Of course, the Libertarian view on this and many other issues does not work in isolation. You can't have Libertarian open borders without also having Libertarian abolishment of Medicaid and Medicare, and how many people are willing to let grandma fend for herself without Medicare at this point? To say the least, Libertarian-style government would have to be VERY carefully phased in over a long period of time to avoid disaster. It would obliterate many pet projects and upset many apple carts. When it comes right down to it, so many influential people would be so upset by it that I doubt it will get off the ground in my lifetime or in the next generations lifetime.
In other words, influential people would be inclined to suppress it (visibility), and many others would simply not be for it when it hurts grandma (wide appeal).
OK, so what about the base for the Democrats and Republicans? They are not doing so well in the criteria #1 department. Mostly I see them riding on the coattails of those who built their parties up before them - criteria #2. Their bases are dwindling. Fewer and fewer people are voting Republican or Democrat "because their daddy did". More and more people are feeling disenfranchised by both parties because the parties are not living up to their promises and/or peoples' expectations of them. At least some "values" organizations cannot be too thrilled with violations of law that are being revealed in the Republican administration on a daily basis. "Lefty" organizations cannot be very happy with Democrats like Ted Kennedy who seem so beholden to big-money pharmacy interests that they'll take away people's right to use herbs and alternative medicines.
So, with ever weakening bases, they two main parties find themselves flirting with fringe elements in society to try to win elections. Most obvious may be the Republicans appearing to align themselves with the likes of the Moral Majority and Focus on the Family. Perhaps less obvious is the Democrats appearing to align themselves with gay interest organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign.
I believe that a great many people are ready for a party that they believe represents THEIR interests. I believe that a majority of the population believes the following and would like to see a new party that addresses these issues:
1. Most elected officials at the national level are bought and paid for by corporations.
2. Most elected officials at the national level are more interested in winning the next campaign than doing the job that they were elected to do.
3. Most elected officials at the national level spend far too much time on issues of little importance to the majority of Americans (i.e. abortion, gay rights, prayer in schools).
4. Most elected officials at the national level see the American public as an endless supply of cash to fund pet projects or hand out to their friends.
5. Most elected officials at the national level don't give a damn about being honest with the public.
6. Most elected officials at the national level see themselves as "special" and as those who elected them as "common".
7. Most elected officials at the national level have proven themselves as willing to mortgage America's future in an effort to bolster the bottom line of a few mega-corporations.
8. Most elected officials at the national level (from BOTH parties) are willing to sacrifice individual rights and ignore the Constitution anytime it serves their own agenda.
If a new political party came on the scene that addressed these issues, look out.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)