We don’t hear much about the Supreme Court unless there’s a vacancy. Traditionally, the court usually chooses to not hear arguments for cases that truly contentious unless they absolutely have to. Or unless they feel like choosing the next president of the United States. Arguably the most powerful of the three branches of government, the buck does not stop with the President, but with the nine Supreme Court Justices who may strike down all those unconstitutional laws that Congress and State Legislatures seem so fond of passing.
Last week, in a rare special session, the Supreme Court heard more arguments in Citizens United v. FEC (Federal Election Commission). The case was initially heard last March, but apparently has been unable to reach a decision. Citizens United brought suit against the FEC when the FEC and a federal court blocked the airing of Hillary: The Movie during the 2008 election season. You should check out the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOYcM1z5fTs, it is pretty heinous.
The FEC believes that it had the right to block the airing of the politically charged movie because of language included in campaign finance reform laws passed in 2002 (popularly known as the McCain-Feingold law). In an attempt to prevent unions or corporations from having more of a voice in elections than the rest of us, the law stipulates that any biased election message, about a candidate, financed by a union or corporation, may not be broadcast within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.
Seems fair, I guess. I mean, I certainly couldn’t finance the production of a 90 minute documentary about Hillary Clinton, or any other major politician for that matter so the producers, arguably, have more sway over the general public than I do. But is this stifling of freedom of speech?
Can I get a refresher on the 1st Amendment please? “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.” http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Let’s do it again for good measure, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” I don’t believe it reads, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech unless you’re a union or a corporation.” Unless you’re going to argue that unions and corporations are not people, and the Constitution and the freedoms afforded therein only apply to individuals (While I’m sure there is a boatload of case law backing up that argument I, for one, am not going to go look for it otherwise I’d be here all week.)
For more fun reading on this issue, check out these articles:
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14416613
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/04/mears.election.laws.1/
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Know Your Future Governator: Jerry Brown
This week in Know Your Future Governator, meet Jerry Brown (although this guy, you probably already know)!
Mr. Brown has a rather interesting history, if I may say so myself. Born in San Francisco, he graduated from St. Ignatius High School, spent a year at Santa Clara University before answering God’s call to become a Jesuit Priest. Four years later, he went back to school at UC Berkeley and afterwards attended Yale Law. His political career looks something like this:
1969: Elected to Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees
1970: Elected to be California’s Secretary of State
1974: Elected to be California’s Governor (Reelected in 1978.)
1982: Ran for U.S. Senate and lost to Pete Wilson, so he went to India to work with Mother Teresa
1989: Became Chairman of the State Democratic Party
1992: Ran for U.S. President against Bill Clinton in the Democratic primaries and won Maine, Colorado, Vermont, Connecticut, Utah and Nevada
1998: Elected to be Mayor of Oakland (Although I’m not sure he ever lived there before becoming Mayor. He was reelected in 2002.)
2006: Elected to be California State Attorney General
This is quite the record I have to admit. I know what you’re all thinking: What did he do as Governor of California in the 1970s? Most sources cite him as having a strong environmental record, including the creation of the California Conservation Corps by the former Governor and making the California Coastal Protection Act permanent law. He also takes credit on his campaign site (http://www.jerrybrown.org/about) for California producing 25% of the nation’s new jobs during his tenure. However, since that was the very beginning of the technology boom, I’m not sure I feel comfortable giving him all the kudos for that.
What I find the MOST interesting about Jerry Brown and his website, is the lack of information about the issues! If you check out his website, you’ll notice that it has more than you could ever possibly want to know about his political career and who Jerry Brown is, but zero information about his views on California’s budget crisis, the economy, the drought, or education.
Granted it is extremely early in election season, but what I find the most disturbing about this are the preliminary polls. You can find these on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_gubernatorial_election,_2010. Even with his lack of a plan, Mr. Brown appears to be the favorite in every single poll. I’m certainly not saying that he doesn’t have the potential to do great things, if you check out his “Fighting for You” tab on his Facebook page, http://www.facebook.com/jerrybrown#/jerrybrown?v=wall&viewas=0, it’s clear that he is all about reform. It would just be nice to know exactly what reforms we can look forward to (exactly what reforms we are in for), before we go to vote.
Mr. Brown has a rather interesting history, if I may say so myself. Born in San Francisco, he graduated from St. Ignatius High School, spent a year at Santa Clara University before answering God’s call to become a Jesuit Priest. Four years later, he went back to school at UC Berkeley and afterwards attended Yale Law. His political career looks something like this:
1969: Elected to Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees
1970: Elected to be California’s Secretary of State
1974: Elected to be California’s Governor (Reelected in 1978.)
1982: Ran for U.S. Senate and lost to Pete Wilson, so he went to India to work with Mother Teresa
1989: Became Chairman of the State Democratic Party
1992: Ran for U.S. President against Bill Clinton in the Democratic primaries and won Maine, Colorado, Vermont, Connecticut, Utah and Nevada
1998: Elected to be Mayor of Oakland (Although I’m not sure he ever lived there before becoming Mayor. He was reelected in 2002.)
2006: Elected to be California State Attorney General
This is quite the record I have to admit. I know what you’re all thinking: What did he do as Governor of California in the 1970s? Most sources cite him as having a strong environmental record, including the creation of the California Conservation Corps by the former Governor and making the California Coastal Protection Act permanent law. He also takes credit on his campaign site (http://www.jerrybrown.org/about) for California producing 25% of the nation’s new jobs during his tenure. However, since that was the very beginning of the technology boom, I’m not sure I feel comfortable giving him all the kudos for that.
What I find the MOST interesting about Jerry Brown and his website, is the lack of information about the issues! If you check out his website, you’ll notice that it has more than you could ever possibly want to know about his political career and who Jerry Brown is, but zero information about his views on California’s budget crisis, the economy, the drought, or education.
Granted it is extremely early in election season, but what I find the most disturbing about this are the preliminary polls. You can find these on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_gubernatorial_election,_2010. Even with his lack of a plan, Mr. Brown appears to be the favorite in every single poll. I’m certainly not saying that he doesn’t have the potential to do great things, if you check out his “Fighting for You” tab on his Facebook page, http://www.facebook.com/jerrybrown#/jerrybrown?v=wall&viewas=0, it’s clear that he is all about reform. It would just be nice to know exactly what reforms we can look forward to (exactly what reforms we are in for), before we go to vote.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
This Week in Health Care
Now that Congress is back in session (yup, as of yesterday, we are all screwed), the only thing anyone is talking about is health care. So guess what we’re talking about today?
The general theme is the same, but the tune is wildly different depending on who you talk to. So here are all the things you should know about the health care debate right now:
* The plan emerging from the Senate Finance Committee would create nonprofit cooperatives to compete with insurance companies instead of a government-run insurance plan (We’re going to call this the Baucus plan after the Chairman of the committee Senator Max Baucus, Democrat from Montana. More on this plan in a few bullet points.) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090908/ts_nm/us_usa_healthcare
* Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), has declared that a public option health insurance plan is pretty much essential to the passage of the health care bill in the House of Representatives.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090908/pl_afp/uspoliticshealthcareobamacongress
* The overview of the Baucus plan: The plan would cost approximately $900 billion over 10 years, paid for by Fees on insurance companies, drug makers, medical device manufacturers and insurers. Tax of 35 percent on insurance plans costing above $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families, applied to premium amounts over the threshold. Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. A fee on employers whose workers receive government subsidies to help them pay premiums. Fines on those who fail to get coverage, up to $950 for individuals, $3,800 for families. Oh, and everyone HAS to get coverage otherwise you have to pay those fines. As an example, $950 fine for me would be cheaper than one year of premiums, so do I really have a strong incentive to get health care? Of course not, so in the end we'll still likely end up with large amounts of people uninsured.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_glance
If you’re interested in what the president has to say (although after the whole speech to schoolchildren debacle I’m starting to think most people aren’t… how sad when people will no longer show any respect at all to the nation’s highest office), President Obama will be addressing the country tonight and afterwards, “the country will know exactly what he thinks is the solution to controlling spiraling health care costs.” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_obama_health_care_speech
Also, for an interesting article from The Economist comparing the state of health care in the U.S. to that of health care in Britain, check this out: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14258877.
The general theme is the same, but the tune is wildly different depending on who you talk to. So here are all the things you should know about the health care debate right now:
* The plan emerging from the Senate Finance Committee would create nonprofit cooperatives to compete with insurance companies instead of a government-run insurance plan (We’re going to call this the Baucus plan after the Chairman of the committee Senator Max Baucus, Democrat from Montana. More on this plan in a few bullet points.) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090908/ts_nm/us_usa_healthcare
* Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), has declared that a public option health insurance plan is pretty much essential to the passage of the health care bill in the House of Representatives.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090908/pl_afp/uspoliticshealthcareobamacongress
* The overview of the Baucus plan: The plan would cost approximately $900 billion over 10 years, paid for by Fees on insurance companies, drug makers, medical device manufacturers and insurers. Tax of 35 percent on insurance plans costing above $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families, applied to premium amounts over the threshold. Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. A fee on employers whose workers receive government subsidies to help them pay premiums. Fines on those who fail to get coverage, up to $950 for individuals, $3,800 for families. Oh, and everyone HAS to get coverage otherwise you have to pay those fines. As an example, $950 fine for me would be cheaper than one year of premiums, so do I really have a strong incentive to get health care? Of course not, so in the end we'll still likely end up with large amounts of people uninsured.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_glance
If you’re interested in what the president has to say (although after the whole speech to schoolchildren debacle I’m starting to think most people aren’t… how sad when people will no longer show any respect at all to the nation’s highest office), President Obama will be addressing the country tonight and afterwards, “the country will know exactly what he thinks is the solution to controlling spiraling health care costs.” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_obama_health_care_speech
Also, for an interesting article from The Economist comparing the state of health care in the U.S. to that of health care in Britain, check this out: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14258877.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Know Your Future Governator: Tom Campbell
This week in Know Your Future Governator, meet Tom Campbell!
Currently a visiting professor at the Chapman University (Hey I went there!) School of Law, Campbell has a long history in politics, serving five terms as a Representative in the United States Congress and spent one year as the Director of Finance for the state of California from 2004-2005, the last year that the state balanced the budget without additional taxes, borrowing or dipping into reserves.
Campbell has a PhD in Economics (something that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling) from the University of Chicago and his JD from Harvard (ok, we get it, you’re a smart dude). He served as a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Byron White and was mentored by Milton Friedman. Campbell taught law at Stanford University for five years, and was also Dean of the UC Berkeley Haas School of Business for five years.
Ok, with a record like that how is this guy not 105 years old? Clearly, I think we can all agree that he is well qualified. If you’re not appropriately impressed by the short list that I have presented here, feel free to check out the full list at his website:
http://www.campbell.org/meet-tom/campbell-record
Now for the important stuff!
While Tom lists out several of his platforms individually, I am going to lump a few of them together because otherwise, 1) this will get extremely convoluted and repetitive and 2) I will be late for a barbeque and I’m getting hungry.
On the budget & tax reform: First, CA should be able to pass a budget with a simple majority (YES PLEASE!) provided expenditures have not increased more than inflation and population growth from the prior year. A greater increase should require 2/3 of the votes. Also, if the budget deadline passes and no budget has been agreed upon, we need a provision to continue the previous year’s budget so state citizens do not go without necessary services. Don’t forget the old Republican mantra: no new taxes. In fact, Campbell wants to lower taxes by constraining spending. How does he plan to do that? The infamous line-item veto. I have to say, I do not feel comfortable that a Governor can go through a budget passed by my state representative and cut out certain things that HE (and maybe not anyone else) thinks are unnecessary. Last, but certainly not least, Tom wants to completely overhaul our income tax system and make the state income tax a straight percentage of whatever you pay in federal income taxes. Hmmmm…..
On growing the CA economy, innovation and competitiveness: Campbell believes that it should be written into state law that mortgage writers and lenders in CA have to offer the best terms available to the purchaser, rather than the most lucrative. (Good luck convincing all the legislators’ bank buddies to go along with that.) To preserve California’s innovation and competitive edge, Tom is strongly against cutting any more into education, including K-12, community college, and the UC and state school. (I think I love this guy.)
On education: See above! He also suggests programs to increase parental involvement and mentorship such as one that is currently implemented between the Haas School of Business and the city of Oakland. He also cites a Pleasanton program which embeds character education into the curriculum as a way to keep public school’s safe. To attract and retain good teachers, he suggests relaxing the certification standards so professionals with masters or doctorate degrees could also be eligible to teach elementary or secondary schools. Also, he wants to increase bonuses for good teachers and reduce class sizes even further.
On immigration: Besides imposing severe sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants, Campbell wants to implement an e-verify system to make it easier for employers to ensure that their employees are legal. With the system, an employer can simply log in and make sure that the employee’s name matches the social security number he or she gave.
On water: Clearly, we need more storage water to buffer California when we are in serious drought (like right now). He does not claim to have all the answers on this issue, but believes that we can solve this problem by possibly raising dams, developing on-stream storage, and recharging aquifers. He also suggests desalination, which is currently too expensive because of the high amounts of energy needed. Campbell believes that California should lead the way in designing innovative solutions to solve this problem using alternative energy sources as well as finding new ways to desalinate ocean water without harming the environment.
I confess, I never thought these words would come out of me when discussing a political candidate, but this guy really seems to have a plan. I strongly suggest checking out his website www.campbell.org, if you’re even remotely interested because I only skimmed the surface here. He goes into great detail on all the issues including exactly what he sees as the problem and what he thinks could be a possible solutions. Happy reading!
Currently a visiting professor at the Chapman University (Hey I went there!) School of Law, Campbell has a long history in politics, serving five terms as a Representative in the United States Congress and spent one year as the Director of Finance for the state of California from 2004-2005, the last year that the state balanced the budget without additional taxes, borrowing or dipping into reserves.
Campbell has a PhD in Economics (something that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling) from the University of Chicago and his JD from Harvard (ok, we get it, you’re a smart dude). He served as a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Byron White and was mentored by Milton Friedman. Campbell taught law at Stanford University for five years, and was also Dean of the UC Berkeley Haas School of Business for five years.
Ok, with a record like that how is this guy not 105 years old? Clearly, I think we can all agree that he is well qualified. If you’re not appropriately impressed by the short list that I have presented here, feel free to check out the full list at his website:
http://www.campbell.org/meet-tom/campbell-record
Now for the important stuff!
While Tom lists out several of his platforms individually, I am going to lump a few of them together because otherwise, 1) this will get extremely convoluted and repetitive and 2) I will be late for a barbeque and I’m getting hungry.
On the budget & tax reform: First, CA should be able to pass a budget with a simple majority (YES PLEASE!) provided expenditures have not increased more than inflation and population growth from the prior year. A greater increase should require 2/3 of the votes. Also, if the budget deadline passes and no budget has been agreed upon, we need a provision to continue the previous year’s budget so state citizens do not go without necessary services. Don’t forget the old Republican mantra: no new taxes. In fact, Campbell wants to lower taxes by constraining spending. How does he plan to do that? The infamous line-item veto. I have to say, I do not feel comfortable that a Governor can go through a budget passed by my state representative and cut out certain things that HE (and maybe not anyone else) thinks are unnecessary. Last, but certainly not least, Tom wants to completely overhaul our income tax system and make the state income tax a straight percentage of whatever you pay in federal income taxes. Hmmmm…..
On growing the CA economy, innovation and competitiveness: Campbell believes that it should be written into state law that mortgage writers and lenders in CA have to offer the best terms available to the purchaser, rather than the most lucrative. (Good luck convincing all the legislators’ bank buddies to go along with that.) To preserve California’s innovation and competitive edge, Tom is strongly against cutting any more into education, including K-12, community college, and the UC and state school. (I think I love this guy.)
On education: See above! He also suggests programs to increase parental involvement and mentorship such as one that is currently implemented between the Haas School of Business and the city of Oakland. He also cites a Pleasanton program which embeds character education into the curriculum as a way to keep public school’s safe. To attract and retain good teachers, he suggests relaxing the certification standards so professionals with masters or doctorate degrees could also be eligible to teach elementary or secondary schools. Also, he wants to increase bonuses for good teachers and reduce class sizes even further.
On immigration: Besides imposing severe sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants, Campbell wants to implement an e-verify system to make it easier for employers to ensure that their employees are legal. With the system, an employer can simply log in and make sure that the employee’s name matches the social security number he or she gave.
On water: Clearly, we need more storage water to buffer California when we are in serious drought (like right now). He does not claim to have all the answers on this issue, but believes that we can solve this problem by possibly raising dams, developing on-stream storage, and recharging aquifers. He also suggests desalination, which is currently too expensive because of the high amounts of energy needed. Campbell believes that California should lead the way in designing innovative solutions to solve this problem using alternative energy sources as well as finding new ways to desalinate ocean water without harming the environment.
I confess, I never thought these words would come out of me when discussing a political candidate, but this guy really seems to have a plan. I strongly suggest checking out his website www.campbell.org, if you’re even remotely interested because I only skimmed the surface here. He goes into great detail on all the issues including exactly what he sees as the problem and what he thinks could be a possible solutions. Happy reading!
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
The Tenthers
I don’t know about you, but I am sick of health care. I’m tired of hearing about it; I’m tired of arguing about it. I don’t see why we’re making such a big, hairy deal out of having a public option. Keyword: option, it’s not a takeover. All I can say is that when a mother can’t get health insurance for her 15 month old baby because he’s needed two heart surgeries since he was born and will likely need another one, and we’re actually arguing over whether or not we need a public option in this country, we have clearly lost all of our compassion and humanity.
So instead of talking about health care, which is the only thing congress is talking about this week, we’re going to talk about a small movement that some liberals have fondly nicknamed the “tenthers” (like the birthers, I know, sad attempt at political humor).
To make a long story short, tenthers basically believe that President FDR illegally expanded the federal government’s power to unconstitutional levels by instituting programs such as Social Security. According to tenthers Social Security and other programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, federal education funding, the Veterans Affairs health system and the G.I. bill are all illegal under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
What exactly does the 10th Amendment say you ask? Boy, I’m glad you did (happy to facilitate a U.S History 101 course). The 10th Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Now, I know what you’re thinking: What the hell does that mean?
Basically, (in my own non-legal terms) the 10th Amendment is to ensure that the states retain their sovereignty, autonomy, and basic rights and that the federal government only retains control over powers specifically mentioned in the constitution. Tenthers argue that since the constitution does not specifically mention health care, Medicare, Medicaid and the possible public option, are all illegal. However, the Commerce Clause of the constitution gives congress the power to regulate interstate commerce and is broadly interpreted to give Congress the power to implement all these programs.
Historically, the Supreme Court rarely finds laws unconstitutional for violating the 10th Amendment, and the opinions tend to be only cases when the federal government has attempted to force participation of the state.
Now, do I think that these tenthers have a point? Well, no, not really. But, I do think that our federal government is out of control big. I’m not going to lie, I don’t have a solution, but I actually agree that we could probably stand to do away with a federal program or two and let the states handle it if they see fit. I just really wish these people could find a better (dare I say more thought out?) way to express that idea.
So instead of talking about health care, which is the only thing congress is talking about this week, we’re going to talk about a small movement that some liberals have fondly nicknamed the “tenthers” (like the birthers, I know, sad attempt at political humor).
To make a long story short, tenthers basically believe that President FDR illegally expanded the federal government’s power to unconstitutional levels by instituting programs such as Social Security. According to tenthers Social Security and other programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, federal education funding, the Veterans Affairs health system and the G.I. bill are all illegal under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
What exactly does the 10th Amendment say you ask? Boy, I’m glad you did (happy to facilitate a U.S History 101 course). The 10th Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Now, I know what you’re thinking: What the hell does that mean?
Basically, (in my own non-legal terms) the 10th Amendment is to ensure that the states retain their sovereignty, autonomy, and basic rights and that the federal government only retains control over powers specifically mentioned in the constitution. Tenthers argue that since the constitution does not specifically mention health care, Medicare, Medicaid and the possible public option, are all illegal. However, the Commerce Clause of the constitution gives congress the power to regulate interstate commerce and is broadly interpreted to give Congress the power to implement all these programs.
Historically, the Supreme Court rarely finds laws unconstitutional for violating the 10th Amendment, and the opinions tend to be only cases when the federal government has attempted to force participation of the state.
Now, do I think that these tenthers have a point? Well, no, not really. But, I do think that our federal government is out of control big. I’m not going to lie, I don’t have a solution, but I actually agree that we could probably stand to do away with a federal program or two and let the states handle it if they see fit. I just really wish these people could find a better (dare I say more thought out?) way to express that idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
