Foundation

Remedial Civics Lesson One: How the Constitution is Amended

It has come to my attention that James Dobson is using the strong variant* of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment as a litmus test of Republican Presidential nominees, rejecting those who reject it.

However this makes no sense. Mr. Dobson appears to have forgotten that while a bill becomes a law only if it receives the President’s approval (barring a veto override), a Constituional Amendment requires no such support.

Simply, a Constitutional Amendment comes into force when it clears two hurdles: proposal and ratification. It must succeed at both of these, in order, to become law.

There are two ways an amendment can be officially proposed to the states. The first, and in fact the only way an amendment has ever been achieved in practice, is for both houses of the Congress to give the amendment their two thirds approval. The second way, which has never happened, is for two thirds of the state legislatures to apply for a new Convention, in the style of the original in Philadelphia, which would then draft and finally vote to propose one or more amendments.

By Convention or by Congress, a proposed amendment must then move on to ratification before it becomes law. Again, there are two ways for this to work, and the Congress may propose either method be used for a given amendment. Firstly and again I believe the only way in practice, three fourths of the state legislatures may approve the amendment, at which time it becomes part of the Constitution. Secondly, the states may be directed to hold conventions, and then if three fourths of the state conventions ratify the amendment, the amendment is ratified and part of the Constitution.

At no point in time does the President have any say whatsoever in the passage of an amendment. Therefore, I respectfully submit to Mr. Dobson that he should re-read Article V of the Constitution, and get to work now to lobby to propose his preferred FMA, rather than hassling our Presidential nominees about something they’d have no control over at all.

* There have been two forms of the FMA proposed. One would be just write the Defense of Marriage Act into the Constitution, which means it defines marriage for the purposes of the federal government, and also prohibits the states from being forced by the courts to accept other definitions of marriage. I call this the ‘weak’ form. Another, the one that Dobson refers to, is the ‘strong’ form

3 back in the WC, uh oh. Doesn’t help to be a game and a half behind the Philles for that, too.

The Yankees are 3.5 back in their division, too. Both teams I’ve been pulling for can’t fall short in their races can they?

Scenario: Democrat in a rock-ribbed Republican state. He politics the snot out of his state to get himself elected statewide, then runs for national office.

Result: He goes off to Washington and votes the party line a maddening amount of the time. Democrats quietly snicker in triumph, Republicans tear our hair out while failing to get any attacks to stick.

Scenario: Republican in a decidedly Democratic state. He politics the snot out of his state to get himself elected statewide, then runs for national office.

Result: He never gets anywhere because Republicans are so scared of people who ‘grow’ in office that we get scared that any flipping will lead to flip-flopping. Attacks. Finger-pointing. Democrats quietly snicker in triumph.

Is this the way things ought to be? I’m not sure, to be honest. Clearly there is possible political improvement to be had, but I don’t know if we want to play this game.

It’s been nearly a year and a half since I flip-flopped my last Stellvia wallpaper, and almost two years since I switched to that to begin with. That’s a long time with one wallpaper, but then again it’s not every day one comes across something good for a 2560×1024 span of desktop space. Chrono Symphonic supplied something pretty though:

It always amazes me that I managed to get by with a single 1152×864 desktop for so long. It was pretty easy to get desktops for it though: just take a screenshot from a DVD and it’s time to go!

I can’t run without my knee giving out on me, and I can’t play Wii Bowling without my arm and shoulder hurting (OK, this one’s just from the amount I play it and the strength with which I throw the ball in that game).

And my knee might just be a shoe-related problem.

[09:38] <Frodo> <[Relic]> anyone want to play gtkatlantic?  :)
[09:39] <Frodo> <Aerdan> gtkatlantic sucks; atlantik is much better. <.<
[09:39] <Neil> ditto Aerdan
[09:39] <Neil> heh
[09:40] <Frodo> <[Relic]> unfortunately atlantik doesn't seem to be able to access the servers for gtkatlantic
[09:40] <Frodo> <Aerdan> [Relic]: that's what monopd is for. :P
[09:41] <Frodo> <[Relic]> but it doesn't seem to work well :(
[09:41] <Frodo> <Aerdan> that's odd, it was working just fine when I played monopoly with my siblings last year.
[09:41] <Neil> bug Rob if it's seriously broken
...
[09:42] <Frodo> <Aerdan> I'm in windows right now, or I would.
[09:42] <Frodo> <[Relic]> see you can use gtkatlantic in windows  :)
[09:42] <Frodo> <Aerdan> which I refuse to do cos gtkatlantic is crap.
[09:43] <Frodo> <Aerdan> it needs an overhaul.

I’m still loyal.

We have a great Republican field this Presidential campaign cycle. This is probably top to bottom the strongest Presidential field we’ve had in my lifetime. Well, I may be overstating the case a tad, since we were a mess in 1996 and I was thoroughly turned off by our two leading candidates in 2000. But, we go to the election with the party we have.

And the party we have right now is pretty good. Everpresent mainstream press negativity notwithstanding (Come on, has there ever been a year when there wasn’t some minor Republican scandal being blown up by the Democrats in the press?), I think we have every reason to be excited going into the 2008 election, because if we’re going to lose this one, it’s probably not going to be at the top of the ticket.

Before the 2004 election I made a chart of all my choices, and came to the conclusion that at the time, President Bush was the only person I could vote for. Today, I endeavor to make a similar chart, evaluating the candidates for the Republican nomination and ranking them.

While I consider myself conservative, I make no claims that the issues I choose here are definitively The Conservative Priorities™ or any such silliness. I claim these only to be my preferences, for how little they are worth.

I evaluate every candidate primarily based upon what I see on his website, using his own words to evaluate what his priorities are. However I also fill in the gaps using my own knowledge of the candidate’s track record where I can.

I am also open to correction on any of these guys. My only agenda is to represent my views; I’m not wedded to any particular candidate. I don’t care what his name is; I’ll support whoever represents me best.

Definitions of my categories:

• War on Terror encompasses the global war on terror fought abroad, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, Indonesia, or anywhere else, as well as efforts at home needed to prosecute the war.
• Border Security encompasses securing our ports and borders, as well as ensuring people are not allowed to remain in this country without passing through the thorough screening immigrants are supposed to receive.
• Taxes encompasses the candidate’s willingness to raise or lower taxes of any kind, whether income, gasoline, death, or tariff.
• Spending encompasses the candidate’s efforts to contain the entire two trillion dollar budget. Mandatory spending efforts dwarf pork.
• Federalism is a broad category, measuring how quick a candidate is to try to federalize an issue for political gain or because of political expedience, versus a willingness to leave an issue to the states when it it just, even if the fight at the state level will be harder.
• The Judiciary refers to a candidate’s track record in supporting the placement of good judges on the bench, as well as a willingness to stand up to judges that go too far.
• Other lets me reward or punish a canddiate who is striking in areas not listed here, such as monetary policy, abortion, or tax reform.

The Chart:

Notes:

Brownback: Wants government to act on ‘energy independence,’ and ‘decency,’ but gets credit for being anti-UN. Strong on traditional values. Favors Bush ‘path to citizenship?’

Cox: Sounds protectionist, never won elective office before?, seems to have no problem with increasing the federal government on his issues. Site issues page says nothing about judges.

Giuliani: Cut taxes, but a big surplus is troubling. Site issues page says nothing about SS/Medicare/Medicaid. Sued to maintain NYC’s status as sanctuary for illegal aliens. Expressed support for taxpayer-funded abortions as a Constitutional right. Said that his judges could uphold Roe.

Huckabee: Powell Doctrine? Obama-like talk re: Pakistan? Regional summit presumably including Iran? Forget spending and his seeming support for a ‘guest worker’ program, I question Huckabee on the war. Throw in pro-subsidy, ‘energy independence,’ ‘obesity,’ and ‘fair trade,’ and we have a real loser. No word on ‘mandatory’ spending, but seems to favor government ‘health’ programs.

Hunter: Fair Trade, yawn. Big government for values as far as the eye can see. No word on ‘mandatory’ spending. Nothing in his judicial priorities with respect to interpretation of the law. Personally would cost me money re: gambling.

McCain: Spending discussion talks pork, neglects ‘mandatory’ spending. ‘Torture’ amendment shows willingness to make enemy propaganda as senator. Opposed some of the President’s tax cuts. ‘Gang of 14’ blocked some good judges from the bench. Leads vocally as a maverick, but gets quiet when with the majority of our party. Talks dangerously re: ‘global warming.’

Paul: No plan for entitlements. Would cut and run in Iraq. Weird, deflationary monetary policy. Isolationist. No word on judges.

Romney: Talks about Iran, not Pakistan. Committed to keeping our markets open against protectionism. Specifically says what I say: that the key to spending is entitlements, but offers no specifics. No word on judges. Flip flops though? Run for Senate was troubling.

Tancredo: Timetables for Iraq? Blech. Another pro-tariff, protectionist candidate? What happened to us? Team America PAC allies itself with Buchanans and Evilcons.

Thompson: Excellent statement re: UBL. Acting credentials lend credibility to ability to communicate effectively. Prior BCRA support troubling, though he now suggests support for drastic reductions in CFR. Website says little re: Iraq, focusing instead on total war against “Radical Islam.” No commentary up on the Judiciary.

Clearly I have my favorites, but at the same time I’m a tough grader, given how badly the whole field scored in my catchall category. There’s something to knock for everyone. But looking at this table, it’s clear that were it not for Tancredo’s Buchananite tendencies I’d vote for him in a heartbeat. Other than him, though, this exercise makes me favor Thompson and Romney even more, while seeing Huckabee as far worse of a candidate than I ever imagined.

In conclusion: Thompson/Romney ’08!

Make that three back in the Division AND the Wild Card now…

Commentators have made much hay out of various straw poll results, placing great importance on them for lesser-known candidates. But what exactly are they saying? Let’s find out.

Oklahomans for Ron Paul Wiki has a nice chart of a large number of straw polls, which is no surprise given that Ron Paul’s supporters have made great efforts to win straw polls. Here is a chart showing how many times each remaining candidate has finished first, second, or third in any of those straw polls:

It turns out if you weight the finishes by place (five points for first, three for second, one for third), the chart doesn’t change much:

Romney, Thompson, and Paul all trade places, but they’re still far ahead of the pack.

We all know Ron Paul isn’t going to win this thing, though, so let’s exclude him. Yes, yes, yes, I know there are all kinds of problems with just deleting Ron Paul’s votes and seeing who would have finishes where without him, but I’m curious. So here we go:

Now we’re seeing some change. All other candidates gain, including Tancredo who goes from El Zilcho to three third place finishes, but by far the biggest winner is Rudy Giuliani, who soars above the pack and into a solid third place. Hunter and Huckabee then make up their own tier, above McCain, Brownback, and Tancredo.

Once again, weighting the results flip-flops the two leaders, because Thompson has slightly more first place finishes but Romney has more overall finishes, but it’s still clearly a three man race.

If straw polls mean anything then Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, or Rudy Giuliani will be representing the Republican Party in November 2008, with no doubt about it. It’s a three man race, and the neck-and-neck frontrunners are Thompson and Romney.

First the Dodgers collapsed, looking almost completely out of it, so I started monitoring the Yankees some. They got close, but now have fallen off again, while the Dodgers have started creeping up close again!

Second place and three out of the Wild Card (Arizona), Third place and four out of the division (San Diego), with three left to play against the Padres and six against the Diamondbacks. It’s not ideal, but it’s doable.