Tag: amendments

Constitutional Amendment II

Post author By David
Post date May 12, 2009
2 Comments on Constitutional Amendment II

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Amendment 2 is worded as an absolute:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The prohibition on infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not limited to the Congress. Although I think that some regulations are acceptable (such as requiring registration of ownership for firearms) this simple wording does not seem to allow any room for the banning of handguns or automatic weapons. (Personally I don’t see any reason that people would have cause to own automatic weapons but that’s beside the point.) The only possible wiggle room I can see in the wording is the purpose of having a well regulated militia as the reason for the right. If the goal is for a well regulated militia it could be argued that the government (state or federal) could prohibit gun ownership for convicted felons or those diagnosed with some significant type of mental disability because gun ownership among such people would detract rather than advance the cause of a well regulated militia.

Tags amendments, Bill of Rights, Constitution, documents, history, liberty

National

Orrin at the Bully Pulpit

As soon as I read the title, D.C. voting act is best way to ensure that Utah gets its 4th seat, I knew we were in for more misinformation. To then go to the article and find that it was written by Senator Hatch was a pleasant surprise – I had been afraid that it was another editorial board capitulating to his "expertise."

Most of the article reiterates the arguments that got me writing last time but there are a few new twists that should be corrected. Many, like me, argue that due to our high growth Utah is assured of another seat after the 2010 census. Orrin answers that "Utah is the fastest-growing state since 2007, but not since the last census." That is damning to the very bill he’s peddling. Look at the language of the bill – it adds an extra seat for D.C. and for "the state next in line for a seat." That was Utah in 2000, but since we are not the fastest growing state since 2000 maybe it’s not Utah in 2010 – we could immediately lose our extra seat after the census if Utah really was not growing as fast as we thought.

America’s founders did what the bill would do today. Virginia and Maryland ceded land for the District in 1788. Until the District was formally established in 1800, Congress treated Americans living on that land as if they still lived in a state so they could be represented in Congress.

We should clarify that between 1788 and 1800 the founders treated Americans living in those ceded lands as if they still lived in the state which had ceded the land – not as an independent political entity – so they could be represented in Congress. That’s more like the idea being promoted by Rep. Chaffetz.

Apparently Orrin thinks that Congress has authority over the Constitution:

. . . the courts have ruled that Congress can use its legislative authority over the District "in all cases whatsoever" to accomplish there what the Constitution accomplishes for states.

It is true that Congress has legislative authority over the District "in all cases whatsoever" but Congress does not have authority to redefine the Constitution simply because it involves the District. The Constitution talks about apportioning tazes among the citizens of the states, but it does not prohibit Congress from taxing the district over which they have exclusive legislative authority. It does not allow Congress, however, to stipulate the nature of Congress – that requires a Constitutional Amendment. That’s what we need, an amendment removing the cap on the size of Congress and stipulating a maximum size (in population) for a Congressional District. At the same time this amendment could grant voting representation to the citizens of any territory which pays federal taxes (or any other generic designation that would encompass D.C.).

Tags amendments, change congress, Deseret News, fourth seat, issues, Orrin Hatch

National State

Orrin Depends on Sloppy Journalism

Post author By David
Post date January 7, 2009
14 Comments on Orrin Depends on Sloppy Journalism

The news media is supposed to help us make sense of the world around us, but to a large degree most news organizations have relegated themselves to being nothing more than data streams. A perfect example today comes with the news regarding the D.C. Voting rights bill that Orrin Hatch introduced (again) yesterday. In the Washington Watch section of today’s Utah Policy we get news of the event with no analysis and a mention of, but no link to, the press release. They manage to quote Hatch as he contradicts himself (I’ll get to that in a minute) but offer no analysis or context. The Washington Post covers the story in a biased fashion, but at least in their case we could expect that as Washington has everything to gain and nothing to lose by this bill. Simply put, the residents of D.C. have a legitimate complaint and they would rather compromise on the issue than take the time to make the change in the right way. The compromise is that they offer to help Utah to a temporary solution to Utah’s legitimate concern of being denied a seat in conjunction with a permanent solution to their predicament. Looking at the Deseret News coverage we find the story played as a tussle between Hatch and Jason Chaffetz but still little analysis of the merits of the bill.

Let’s see what analysis of the merits of the bill would tell us.

The residents of D.C. have a legitimate grievance about their lack of voting representation in the House. The proper solution would be an amendment that would grant voting representation in the House to the citizens of any territory that pays federal taxes, or returning the residential portions of D.C. to Maryland as suggested by Rep. Chaffetz – this bill does neither of those things. Likewise Utah has a legitimate complaint about being denied another seat after the 2000 census. The proper solution is our pursuit of a redress through the judicial system and a bill to examine and improve the methodology of counting for the census as well as growing our way outside the margin of error in the census system. We have the growth, we pursued the judicial relief, and this bill does not address the census methodologies in any way.

Let’s see what sloppy journalism ignores in Hatch’s statement.

While the 2010 census and reapportionment might provide Utah an additional seat, the failure of the 2000 process showed that this is not a sure thing. This bill maximizes the chances of securing an additional seat for Utah, which has had one of the country’s fastest growth rates since the last census.

I have no doubt that when Hatch spoke he emphasized the word "might" regarding Utah gaining another seat after the 2010 census. Somehow he can get away with saying that, and admitting that Utah has one of the fastest growing populations since the 2000 census, without anyone questioning in their stories how having one of the fastest growth rates in the country would allow us to still be below the margin for error in the next census.

For those who are wondering, the bill makes no mention of Utah. It provides two new seats in the House and assigns one to D.C. The supporters of the bill are trying to work fast before Utah gains their seat in the 2010 census because they aren’t willing to wait until Congress will give them what they deserve, which is representation in the house without resorting to a gimmick such as offering a balancing seat to poor, picked-on Utah. They also fear that after 2010 there will not be a Republican state with a legitimate grievance about their apportionment of representatives. I understand that legislation is dependent on the art of compromise, and rightly so in most cases, but gimmicks are not the same thing as compromise.

Orrin is not representing the interests of his constituents – he’s simply representing the interests of some of his friends in Washington. If that were not the case he would not have to lie to us and say that we might not get our deserved representation from the 2010 census.

Tags amendments, Deseret News, fourth seat, media, Orrin Hatch, Utah Policy, voting

culture National

Bill of Rights Day

Today is Bill of Rights Day, the day when the Bill of Rights was ratified 217 years ago. This holiday, along with Independence Day and Constitution Day, represents the real celebration of the great country we should be striving to maintain. Interestingly, while Independence Day is the most celebrated of the three our independence did nothing to guarantee any future liberties in this country. Our Constitution was supposed to help preserve our liberties by setting up a government structure that would be capable of securing our liberties from both internal and external forces which would seek to infringe upon them. The structure that was devised could not, in itself, guarantee that the government itself would not be an abuser of liberty – that is where the Bill of Rights comes in. The Bill of Rights spelled out the rights of citizens where the federal government would not be allowed to infringe (in theory). This is where the rubber meets the road. A monarchy with such a bill of rights – where those rights are truly upheld – would be as good a government as the three pronged government that the founders defined in the constitution. The real difference being that a monarchy would more easily overrun the individual rights without the checks in place of an independent judiciary etc.

The original Bill of Rights had 12 amendments adopted by Congress. Numbers 3 – 12 were ratified in 1791. Number 2 was ratified as the 27th amendment in 1992. The first amendment proposed has not yet been ratified.

On this Bill of Rights Day I look with trepidation at a government and society where the first question of government is "What responsibilities can be assigned to the government?" The question should be "How can the government more fully ensure liberty among her people?" The first question brings an intrusive government which attempts to do the impossible. The last question would bring a government which is content to enforce liberty, thus setting the conditions where the society could accomplish greater things than ever before.

Tim Lynch of the CATO Institute has a great rundown of how our Bill of Rights is faring in modern government. Jim Babka has some ideas about how we can get our government to protect those rights that they are so prone to trample.

Tags amendments, Bill of Rights, Constitution, documents, government, history, holidays

National

Support But Don’t Trust

I am a strong supporter of our government. I obey the laws (even little ones like speed limits and seat belt laws) and pay my taxes without complaint and without seeking any tricks to minimize those taxes. Supporting the government, however, does not mean that I trust the government when they ask for expanded powers. I oppose the efforts of courts, congress, or the President to increase their powers in any area of society. In the financial sector that lack of trust has proven to be a sound policy recently. As September turned to October I wrote six different times opposing the bailout. All over the news and in many blogs people were saying that we should hold our noses and accept that plan because it was necessary. Now I am finding it ironic that some those same people who support the government managing more of our lives are unhappy as they see the mismanagement of the "necessary" bailout funds.

It seems that Congress is the special group in the world that can convince us to let them have more of our money based on how poorly they use it. Perot Charts reports that Theresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York testified testified in support of a plan that would "modify" 401K’s. Components of the plan include the following:

- All workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S, government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account which would be invested in government bonds that would accrue 3 percent per year.
- The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.

This is extremely frightening considering that the 5% that you would be required to "invest" (at only 3% return) on a $25,000 salary is $1250 For that you would receive a $600 subsidy. This might appear helpful to those who make very little money, but the benefits of their savings are insignificant compared to their needs at retirement and come at a very high price for everyone who just lost their tax savings that encourage them to save in a 401K, not to mention the disincentive that this would be to business who have provided tax free matching for 401K accounts which do much better than 3% returns 90% of the time. Overall savings in the country would decline under this plan.

Is it any wonder that my support of our government does not include my trust. We should all support our government no matter who is in power, but support means that we watch them instead of trusting them. It means that we hold our leaders accountable for what they do. For me, it means that every chance I get I will encourage them to give power back to the people and the states. I like that 10th amendment – too bad it gets worse treatment than the other 26.

Tags amendments, connections, Constitution, economics, government, media, money, New York Times

culture State

An Illegal Constitutional Revision?

Post author By David
Post date November 5, 2008
17 Comments on An Illegal Constitutional Revision?

Gay-rights advocates in California think that everyone else is an imbecile. They have decided to file a lawsuit claiming that Proposition 8 is "an illegal constitutional revision — not a more limited amendment." They expect that nobody will recognize that the California Constitution makes no distinction between an amendment and a revision. They also expect that they can bully people into forgetting that the nature of an amendment is that it cannot be illegal so long as it is enacted according to the established procedures.

Of course it is possible to make an amendment that goes against common sense, such as an amendment to designate that "in government math 2+3=7." As stupid as that sounds, if such an amendment were passed into law by following the established procedures it would be the law of the state and government calculations would have to be revised accordingly until an amendment were passed to repeal it. (Think back on the 18th and 21st amendments to the federal Constitution.)

There is no such thing as an illegal constitutional revision so long as the revision is made according to the legal procedures. They just hope they can bully the people of California through the courts on this like they did with Proposition 22 from 2000. The difference is that Proposition 8 is now the law of California and the California courts may not invalidate their own constitution – only a new amendment can do that.

Tags amendments, California, courts, gay marriage, Prop 8

life Local

Go Vote Now

I went to my polling place this morning and the lines were so long (at 7:00 am) that I decided to go to work first. My first thought was that maybe I didn’t need to remind anyone to vote today but then I thought better of it. Everyone go vote as early as you can (especially in the Bountiful 18th Precinct) so the lines won’t be so long at 6:00 pm when I will go try again. Due to sickness and the subsequent catching up I was unable to participate in early voting last week so now I will be trying to go after work. I will be waiting in line if necessary.

I talked to Scott, one of my coworkers who voted this morning, and he noticed that one of the things that made the lines go slower was having people standing at the voting booths reading about the issues (such as the Constitutional Amendments). Having done his research in advance, he was able to cast all his votes and leave while the people at the other booths before him were still making their choices. Based on that, perhaps the Lieutenant Governor might provide a one page summary of those types of issues that will be on the ballot so that people can read while they stand in line rather than holding up the line by reading at the booth.

While you are waiting to vote, go have a look at Jordy’s list of potential ways to choose who you vote for.

Tags 2008, amendments, ballot initiatives, civic participation, connections, elections, voting

National State

Pursue a Real Solution

I have been staunchly opposed to this expansion of the House of Representatives to grant D.C. a voting representative. The political compromise of giving a balancing seat to the Republicans (for Utah) until the next census doesn’t make the move any more legal. Despite what some people may believe I am not opposed to D.C. having a voting representative, but I am opposed to giving D.C. special treatment. As the House of Representatives was intended to represent the people of the United States it would make sense to amend the Constitution to state that:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, districts, and territories of the United States. (changes in bold)

To that ammendment I would add (perhaps as a separate section) the stipulation that:

The size of the House of Representatives shall be determined by the decennial census and the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand nor fall below one for every two hundred thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative; (changes in bold)

Such an amendment would provide a legal remedy to the non-voting status of D.C. but would also fix the same issue faces by other U.S. territories. At the same time it would reverse the arbitrary limit on the size of the House of Representatives that was enacted in 1911. This would all be done without resorting to political deal-making in which the deal makers (like our beloved Senator Hatch) feel free to ignore the law of the land in the name of whatever they deem as good.

I have already talked about Thirty-Thousand.org but I was surprised to learn of other groups that oppose Public Law 62-5 (as that bill is known). There was even a good article about it in the Daily Kos back in 2006 (which is where I picked the upper bound at 200,000). Back then the Republicans were in control of both houses of Congress, now that Democrats are in control I doubt that the Daily Kos would be very supportive of such a change since it’s their party that is holding the concentrated reins of power now.

I would like to see all those who are interested in returning to population based representation start working with DC Vote to encourage them to push for a full and legal solution to their issue rather than sadling us with the illegal, “politically expedient” half measure they have been pursuing. Perhaps reminding them that they would be able to get three or four voting members of Congress might pursuade them to take up the banner.

Tags amendments, change congress, Constitution, electoral college, unconstitutional

State

Rejecting Amendment E

While amendment D looks to close a loophole in the Constitution, Constitutional Amendment E appears to be opening a loophole. I admit that there is potential to increase the funds available for public education if we allow some of those funds to be invested in private company stocks or bonds. The problem is that this amendment provides no guidelines or safeguards to such a practice and therefore the only guarantee that we have from this amendment is that we increase the risk attached to the funds available for public education.

If the legislature wants to take public money and make use of stocks and bonds to increase the value of our tax revenues I could be pursuaded to accept that, but they had better put some safeguards on the ways our public funds are invested in the Constitution, rather than relying on future statutes to define any protective measures – the original prohibition serves to safeguard public money, when making such a large exception we should be sure that there are some limitations in place.

Tags 2008, amendments, ballot initiatives, elections, State Constitution, Utah

State

Supporting Amendment D

With the insertion of only 12 words Constitutional Amendment D would close a technicality which could be used by some enterprising politicians to wreak havoc on the necessary and often too-political process of redistricting. Now is a good time to do it too because, while redistricting is usually little more than adjusting existing district boundaries, our next redistricting will include the creation of a new district (barring some major surprises). Without this amendment, redistricting could be declared invalid if a special session became necessary on a different subject between the time of the census and the next general session. Also, it could be challenged in the event of the U.S. Census Bureau taking longer than expected to process the census results.

This amendment helps to protect the state from adding any more political maneuvering in this important and often partisan process.

Tags 2008, amendments, ballot initiatives, elections, State Constitution, Utah