Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Monday, April 25, 2005
Filibusters
The filibuster is a U. S. Senate practice whereby a single Senator, or his minority party, can block full Senate consideration of a bill or nomination by extending debate on the proposal indefinitely. The resulting "filibuster" can ordinarily be stopped only by a "cloture" vote, which requires 60 of the 100 Senators (a supermajority) to vote to end debate, and bring the bill or nomination to a final vote.
The filibuster, obviously, plays a crucial role whenever only 50 to 59 Senators support a given bill or nomination. It can ensure that the proposal is not approved, despite the fact that a majority of the Senate (or half the Senate, plus the Vice President, who breaks ties) would approve the measure if a vote were taken.
This right to endless debate evolved in the Senate over the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It is now embodied in the Senate's own formal rules - particularly Rule XXII, which guarantees unlimited discussion absent cloture.
Filibusters of old required the filibustering party to actually stand and hold the Senate floor by speaking continuously, in order to delay a final vote, as depicted in Frank Capra's famous movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," which featured Jimmy Stewart as a young and idealistic Senate newcomer. Today, by contrast, a minority party can indefinitely put off a vote on a bill or nomination by simply indicating to Senate leaders that this indefinite delay is desired - unless there are 60 Senators in favor of cloture.
--Article by Vikram David Amar. Full text athttp://www.yuricareport.com/Law%20&%20Legal/Senate%20Rules%20on%20Filibuster.html
It seems to me that if you're going to have filibusters, you should have them the old fashioned way: Have the senator stand up in front of everybody, eat his Wheaties, and give some sense to the world why he's wasting everybody's time. This business of voting whether or not to vote is pretty darned stupid.
Friday, April 22, 2005
Daylight Saving Time
"For in walking thro' the Strand and Fleet Street one morning at seven o clock, I observed there was not one shop open tho it had been daylight and the sun up above three hours -- the inhabitants of London choosing voluntarily to live much by candlelight and sleep by sunshine, and yet often complaining a little absurdly of the duty on candles and the high price of tallow." --Ben Franklin, Autobiography
Factoid: Daylight Saving Time, for the U.S. and its territories, is NOT observed in Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, most of the Eastern Time Zone portion of the State of Indiana, and the state of Arizona (not the Navajo Indian Reservation, which does observe). Navajo Nation participates in the Daylight Saving Time policy, due to its large size and location in three states.
"I don't really care how time is reckoned so long as there is some agreement about it, but I object to being told that I am saving daylight when my reason tells me that I am doing nothing of the kind. I even object to the implication that I am wasting something valuable if I stay in bed after the sun has risen. As an admirer of moonlight I resent the bossy insistence of those who want to reduce my time for enjoying it. At the back of the Daylight Saving scheme I detect the bony, blue-fingered hand of Puritanism, eager to push people into bed earlier, and get them up earlier, to make them healthy, wealthy and wise in spite of themselves." (Robertson Davies, The Diary of Samuel Marchbanks, 1947, XIX, Sunday.)
Useful References: http://webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/
Most Hoosiers are happy leaving time alone. The reasons for this are many and varied.
1. There aren't that many "strange quirks" for Hoosiers, so let's try and keep the one.
2. We don't want to be particularly associated with either Chicago or New York.
3. We're too far West to be East, and too far East to be Central.
4. Sun's gonna come up on its own schedule. Not on ours.
5. Tell us again why you all change your clocks?
6. Okay, say we do change our clocks. Do we really want the sun shining at 10:00 PM?
7. Say we go to Central time. Do we really want the sun to shine at 5:00 AM?
8. How many clocks did you say you changed twice a year? VCR's? Microwaves? Tsk.
9. Keeps the blue states guessing.
10. 15 Indiana counties already do what they want with time. Think that's gonna change?
It's good sport to watch the Indiana legislature wrestle with this one. Seems like a lot of people care enough to harass their state legislator. This kind of belies the idea that Hoosiers are indifferent about it. It now occurs to me that by the time this is settled, we will have lost every hour that we would have gained by DST in the first place, just arguing about it.
Factoid: Daylight Saving Time, for the U.S. and its territories, is NOT observed in Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, most of the Eastern Time Zone portion of the State of Indiana, and the state of Arizona (not the Navajo Indian Reservation, which does observe). Navajo Nation participates in the Daylight Saving Time policy, due to its large size and location in three states.
"I don't really care how time is reckoned so long as there is some agreement about it, but I object to being told that I am saving daylight when my reason tells me that I am doing nothing of the kind. I even object to the implication that I am wasting something valuable if I stay in bed after the sun has risen. As an admirer of moonlight I resent the bossy insistence of those who want to reduce my time for enjoying it. At the back of the Daylight Saving scheme I detect the bony, blue-fingered hand of Puritanism, eager to push people into bed earlier, and get them up earlier, to make them healthy, wealthy and wise in spite of themselves." (Robertson Davies, The Diary of Samuel Marchbanks, 1947, XIX, Sunday.)
Useful References: http://webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/
Most Hoosiers are happy leaving time alone. The reasons for this are many and varied.
1. There aren't that many "strange quirks" for Hoosiers, so let's try and keep the one.
2. We don't want to be particularly associated with either Chicago or New York.
3. We're too far West to be East, and too far East to be Central.
4. Sun's gonna come up on its own schedule. Not on ours.
5. Tell us again why you all change your clocks?
6. Okay, say we do change our clocks. Do we really want the sun shining at 10:00 PM?
7. Say we go to Central time. Do we really want the sun to shine at 5:00 AM?
8. How many clocks did you say you changed twice a year? VCR's? Microwaves? Tsk.
9. Keeps the blue states guessing.
10. 15 Indiana counties already do what they want with time. Think that's gonna change?
It's good sport to watch the Indiana legislature wrestle with this one. Seems like a lot of people care enough to harass their state legislator. This kind of belies the idea that Hoosiers are indifferent about it. It now occurs to me that by the time this is settled, we will have lost every hour that we would have gained by DST in the first place, just arguing about it.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
National Sales Tax
Proposed House Bill: Subchapter A Section 1, item`(a) IN GENERAL- There is hereby imposed a tax of 15 percent on the gross payments for the use, consumption or enjoyment in the United States of any taxable property or service, whether produced or rendered within or without the United States.-- National Retail Sales Tax Act of 1997 (Introduced in House)
"If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds." --Alexander Hamilton
When you tax something, you get less of it. Put a tax on cigarettes, liquor, gasoline, etc., and consumption naturally falls (or people go across state lines to get it at the right price).
If we agree to a national sales tax, where a car costs $25,000 instead of $20,000; or a TV that yesterday cost $449 now costs $565; the economy will come to a screeching halt. Sure, people have to buy food. They have to buy dish soap. But do they need the big ticket items? Can they put off remodelling the bathroom? Is this trip to The Gap really necessary? When those questions are finally answered, you will see that people will find out they can do without a lot of stuff.
Half the people in the U.S. don't pay tax today, and that's the way they like it. Now we're going to ask them to start paying 15-17-23% in sales tax? Ha. Talk about a plan that's DOA. But let's say the politicos do manage put such a plan into play. The people buying things now will stop buying things for at least a year. Can our economy survive that? I doubt it.
"If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds." --Alexander Hamilton
When you tax something, you get less of it. Put a tax on cigarettes, liquor, gasoline, etc., and consumption naturally falls (or people go across state lines to get it at the right price).
If we agree to a national sales tax, where a car costs $25,000 instead of $20,000; or a TV that yesterday cost $449 now costs $565; the economy will come to a screeching halt. Sure, people have to buy food. They have to buy dish soap. But do they need the big ticket items? Can they put off remodelling the bathroom? Is this trip to The Gap really necessary? When those questions are finally answered, you will see that people will find out they can do without a lot of stuff.
Half the people in the U.S. don't pay tax today, and that's the way they like it. Now we're going to ask them to start paying 15-17-23% in sales tax? Ha. Talk about a plan that's DOA. But let's say the politicos do manage put such a plan into play. The people buying things now will stop buying things for at least a year. Can our economy survive that? I doubt it.
Trade Deficits
News item: Commerce Department said the February trade deficit swelled 4.3% to $61 billion, easily topping November's record $59.4 billion. Exports were nearly flat at $100.5 billion. Imports rose 1.6% to $161.5 billion, also a record. That was partly due to the price-driven run-up in oil imports, which rose $1.4 billion to $13.3 billion.
In a complex economic system, it's easy to oversimplify things. Heads talk about a single figure of merit (like the trade gap) as evidence of things gone wrong. It's why most people don't understand macro-economics. All these numbers are out there and none of them relate to what's happening at home.
To put this "deficit" into perspective, ...it amounts to about $200 per U.S. Citizen.
Two hundred dollars. I have a trade deficit with Great Clips that is more than that. Want to know what my trade deficit at Wal Mart is?
As long as we buy things on the open international market, there will always be this trade gap number. What it really means to us is not as much as some folks would have you believe.
In a complex economic system, it's easy to oversimplify things. Heads talk about a single figure of merit (like the trade gap) as evidence of things gone wrong. It's why most people don't understand macro-economics. All these numbers are out there and none of them relate to what's happening at home.
To put this "deficit" into perspective, ...it amounts to about $200 per U.S. Citizen.
Two hundred dollars. I have a trade deficit with Great Clips that is more than that. Want to know what my trade deficit at Wal Mart is?
As long as we buy things on the open international market, there will always be this trade gap number. What it really means to us is not as much as some folks would have you believe.
Friday, April 08, 2005
Freedom of Association
"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry... has acquired too much, in order to spare others who... have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association - the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." -- Thomas Jefferson
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.
Along with the provisions of freedom of speech in Article 1, that most beloved of all the Bills of Rights, is one that covers freedom of association. It certainly is not the one most vigorously defended, particularly when it involves Boy Scouts, smokers, and college republicans.
Selwyn Duke posted an article in February (http://www.newswithviews.com/Duke/selwyn9.htm) that makes this point as well as anyone has.
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.
Along with the provisions of freedom of speech in Article 1, that most beloved of all the Bills of Rights, is one that covers freedom of association. It certainly is not the one most vigorously defended, particularly when it involves Boy Scouts, smokers, and college republicans.
Selwyn Duke posted an article in February (http://www.newswithviews.com/Duke/selwyn9.htm) that makes this point as well as anyone has.
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Quaint Notions of the US Constitution
"The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification." --Supreme Court "Justice" Ruth Bader Ginsburg
"Many law professors, and others who hold contempt for our Constitution, preach that the Constitution is a living document. Saying that the Constitution is a living document is the same as saying we don't have a Constitution. For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed. How many people would like to play me poker and have the rules be 'living'? Depending on 'evolving standards,' maybe my two pair could beat your flush." --Walter Williams
Gotta love Walter Williams. He is one of the very few opinion page artists who understands both economics and politics. He's of course talking here about those who would seek to change the constitution based on various "alternate interpretations" of the its meanings. The plain language of the constitution leaves little room for that, so anarchists float the idea that the Constitution was meant to change with the times. It's certainly a flexible enough document, which is how we got the Bill of Rights added to it. It's when you realize that changes require thoughtful discussion and a 3/4ths majority, that these people get impatient, and try to change it in fly-by-night courtrooms all over the country.
Now we learn that Darth Bader Ginsburg and her free-wheeling associates think law settled outside this country's borders, from places that do not have the protection of the US Constitution is somehow relevant. Great. Back to the one world society of Woodrow Wilson. Don't let us be dragged down into that morass. We already happen to have the best constitution on the planet and the most complete spectrum of case law to work from. If it comes up somewhere else (like East Timor or New Guinea), it has no bearing on our situation, because it was not reviewed in the context of U.S. constitutionality. We must ask our representatives to approve only those judges who understand, honor, and pledge to protect the constitution.
The new judicial battle is just getting underway. I suspect that, regardless of how it turns out, we are not likely to have a majority of constitutionalists on those benches. Let's hope we get all we can in the right places.
"Many law professors, and others who hold contempt for our Constitution, preach that the Constitution is a living document. Saying that the Constitution is a living document is the same as saying we don't have a Constitution. For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed. How many people would like to play me poker and have the rules be 'living'? Depending on 'evolving standards,' maybe my two pair could beat your flush." --Walter Williams
Gotta love Walter Williams. He is one of the very few opinion page artists who understands both economics and politics. He's of course talking here about those who would seek to change the constitution based on various "alternate interpretations" of the its meanings. The plain language of the constitution leaves little room for that, so anarchists float the idea that the Constitution was meant to change with the times. It's certainly a flexible enough document, which is how we got the Bill of Rights added to it. It's when you realize that changes require thoughtful discussion and a 3/4ths majority, that these people get impatient, and try to change it in fly-by-night courtrooms all over the country.
Now we learn that Darth Bader Ginsburg and her free-wheeling associates think law settled outside this country's borders, from places that do not have the protection of the US Constitution is somehow relevant. Great. Back to the one world society of Woodrow Wilson. Don't let us be dragged down into that morass. We already happen to have the best constitution on the planet and the most complete spectrum of case law to work from. If it comes up somewhere else (like East Timor or New Guinea), it has no bearing on our situation, because it was not reviewed in the context of U.S. constitutionality. We must ask our representatives to approve only those judges who understand, honor, and pledge to protect the constitution.
The new judicial battle is just getting underway. I suspect that, regardless of how it turns out, we are not likely to have a majority of constitutionalists on those benches. Let's hope we get all we can in the right places.
Friday, April 01, 2005
Life is negotiable?
"[T]he Atlanta courthouse attack that left four murdered; the Wisconsin church shooting, where seven were murdered, and Monday's high-school shooting in Minnesota, where nine were murdered.... All three attacks took place in areas where gun possession by those who did the attack as well as civilians generally was already banned -- so-called 'gun-free safe zones.' ... Would you feel safer putting a sign in front of your home saying 'This Home is a Gun-Free Zone'? ... As with many other gun laws, law-abiding citizens, not would-be criminals, would obey the sign. Instead of creating a safe zone for victims, it leaves victims defenseless and creates a safe zone for those intent on causing harm." --John Lott
I continue to be amazed that otherwise intelligent people point to tragedies like those above as if they were proof that more gun control laws are necessary. In fact, they say just the opposite to me. If all of the victims were armed, these events would probably not have happened, or at least the outcome would have been more equitable.
More to the point, it is the constant drumbeat that is the culture of death that I feel is to blame. If we continue to whittle away at the heart of the very young, the very old, or the very ill; as if their lives were merely "negotiable", then how long will it be before nobody's life is worth a plug nickel?
No, I respect life, which is also why I respect the second amendment.
I continue to be amazed that otherwise intelligent people point to tragedies like those above as if they were proof that more gun control laws are necessary. In fact, they say just the opposite to me. If all of the victims were armed, these events would probably not have happened, or at least the outcome would have been more equitable.
More to the point, it is the constant drumbeat that is the culture of death that I feel is to blame. If we continue to whittle away at the heart of the very young, the very old, or the very ill; as if their lives were merely "negotiable", then how long will it be before nobody's life is worth a plug nickel?
No, I respect life, which is also why I respect the second amendment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)