Tag: government

International Hazing/Initiation

Post author By David
Post date March 10, 2009
No Comments on International Hazing/Initiation

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

Yesterday there was a very short story on NPR that caught my attention. Apparently a number of Chinese military ships came very close to an unarmed American military ship in international waters. Close was specified to be under 20 feet at one point which is very close in nautical terms. The suggestion by the reporter was that this was a test of the Obama administration by the Chinese government similar to the capture of an American spy plane by the Chinese very early in the Bush administration.

As I heard that the thought came to me that the situation sounds very much like a high school hazing or a fraternity initiation – except that the stakes are much higher. Either the leaders of China are foolishly playing games with their military, or they are making sure of each new administration in case they ever feel the need to becopme belligerent. (Personally I think the safest assumption is to believe the latter option.)

Tags China, government, international, military

National

Federalist Nos. 55 – 56

Federalist No. 55 and Federalist No. 56 explore a subject which has grown increasingly interesting and important to me the more I have studied – that is a consideration of the proper size of the House of Representatives. Here I find, unsurprisingly, that a few assumptions were made which have proven to be critically incorrect.

It will not be thought an extravagant conjecture that the first census will, at the rate of one for every thirty thousand, raise the number of representatives to at least one hundred. . . At the expiration of twenty-five years, according to the computed rate of increase, the number of representatives will amount to two hundred, and of fifty years, to four hundred. This is a number which, I presume, will put an end to all fears arising from the smallness of the body.

I found it ironic that the projections ended at 400 representatives because we now have 435 voting representatives and we can see that with our current population (exceeding 300 Million) that number is decidedly insufficient – not simply because 435 is not enough, but because 435 is not enough for the expanded (and expanding) role that government has come to take in our nation. The problems that have arisen through a House that is too small to be properly representative could have been prevented by including not only a minimum number which a representative could represent (thirty thousand) but also a maximum number they could represent. The range could even be fairly large (say a maximum of one quarter million active voters per representative – which is over eight times the minimum) to produce a body which could never become fully detached from the people they are meant to represent.

The first wrong assumption was that the ratio would bear some resemblance to the minimum of thirty thousand that had been specified. The second was that we could never have cause for concern with a representative body exceeding four hundred members.

Another wrong assumption is shown in this statement from Federalist No. 56:

It is a sound and important principle that the representative ought to be acquainted with the interests and circumstances of his constituents. But this principle can extend no further than to those circumstances and interests to which the authority and care of the representative relate.

The assumption was that the interests and authority of the representative body in question would remain limited according to the Constitution. Not only does this show a poor assumption but it exposes another avenue for alleviating the problems of our too-small representative body. A reduction in the scope of authority for Congress would also serve to make it possible for a body of 435 to be more faithfully representative of the populous.

A fourth false assumption was:

I am unable to conceive that the people of America, in their present temper, or under any circumstances which can speedily happen, will choose, and every second year repeat the choice of, sixty-five or a hundred men who would be disposed to form and pursue a scheme of tyranny or treachery.

Indeed we live in a time when the people of America choose and repeat the choice of over 400 representatives who consistently pursue some treacherous policies. Whatever changes we do see in the faces of the House it should be noted that attrition takes many more from their seats than being unseated by the vote of the people.

In fairness, our founders were aware of their limitations:

What change of circumstances, time, and a fuller population of our country may produce, requires a prophetic spirit to declare, which makes no part of my pretensions.

They also thought they had addressed the pitfalls before them by allowing for an increase in the number of representatives:

The foresight of the convention has accordingly taken care that the progress of population may be accompanied with a proper increase of the representative branch of the government.

What they missed was that we need to require increases at some point. Whatever their failings of foresight, their conclusion remains true:

a representative for every THIRTY THOUSAND INHABITANTS will render the {inhabitants} both a safe and competent guardian of the interests which will be confided to it.

Today we are in great need to pursue some combination of increasing the size of our representative body or decreasing the scope of authority for that body. There are indications that increasing the size may naturally result in pressures to decrease the authority that rests in the federal government – I would hope that to be the case.

Tags documents, federalist, government, history, house

National

D.C. Voting – House vs Senate

Post author By David
Post date March 4, 2009
2 Comments on D.C. Voting – House vs Senate

Apparently the Senate cloture vote is more newsworthy than the House rules vote on a bill. We have heard on many bills that the cloture vote is the bottleneck or the hurdle that can trip up a bill. In the House the rules vote is the procedural hurdle that must precede the actual vote and can be used to kill or hamper a bill. This is taking place right now with the D.C. Voting Rights Act. I am not particularly a fan of using technicalities, but considering my position on this bill I’m happy to see any delay.

I figure that each passing day makes the bill less enticing for Utah as we draw ever closer to getting our extra seat anyway. In fact, if this bill had still not passed by 2013 and Hatch were still in office I would love to see him reverse position on the bill once Utah were no longer next in line to get the "balancing" extra seat. (I would doubly expect this if the state next in line for a seat leaned Democratic.)

Having studied the issues surrounding this bill there is no doubt that the residents of D.C. have a complaint worth addressing – the only problem is that it must be addressed within the constraints of the law. The only issues that are truly clear cut here are the tax related arguments. The proper resolution for those arguments is not a simple bill but a constitutional amendment to the effect that "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states and all territories subject to the same federal taxes as the several states."

I don’t claim that the threshold for an amendment is an easy one to climb, but I think that a majority of fair minded people could be brought to support such an amendment along with the requisite supermajorities of both houses of Congress. Problem solved, constitutional objections averted.

Tags Constitution, fourth seat, government, house, voting

General State

Public Office and Freedom of Expression

Post author By David
Post date February 20, 2009
4 Comments on Public Office and Freedom of Expression

I could not begin to cover the latest situation with Chris Buttars but there is an important issue there. Everyone has a responsibility to refrain from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, but public officials have even more reason to be judicious in what they choose to say. As far as I’m concerned that’s a choice you make when you run for office. I have not read what he said (nor do I intend to). I have not paid attention to the particulars of the reprimand that he received but I have read a variety of opinions on what should have happened. I thought I would throw in my two bits about these kinds of situations.

I consider it perfectly reasonable that the state senate should have the power to discipline and reprimand its members when they act in a way that detracts from the office they hold. Obviously in criminal cases they should be free to remove the offending senator. This is not a criminal case. Public officials have as much right to fre expression as any other citizen even if they bear a heavier responsibility for their use of that right. Because this is not a criminal case I believe it is up to the voters in the 10th district to decide if they want him to represent them in the senate. Personally, even if I agreed with his politics all the time (which I don’t) I would not want him serving as my representative because of the distraction he brings all too regularly.

Tags government, liberty, public service

General

Two Forms of Government

I really appreciated the video that Scott shared yesterday. (You can see the full video below.) It reminded me that there are only two distinct forms of government. One is transient as it depends on the life of the ruler(s) while the other is stable because it is based on a foundation of written law. Of course we can make changes to that foundation, but the core is rarely changed, if ever.

Our nation was founded upon the rule of law. That was the whole purpose of most of our founding documents (Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact, Articles of Confederation, Constitution, Bill of Rights). The scariest thing in our modern political system is not the goals and ideals of any of the political parties, it is the almost universal attitude within every party that their ideals supercede the law of the land. A perfect example of that attitude was posted as a comment last month stating:

principles . . . must transcend and over-ride individual provisions of the Constitution

Good government depends on that statement being universally rejected. As I responded then:

principles . . . must not transcend or over-ride individual provisions of the Constitution . . . instead those bedrock principles must be used to guide the amendment of the Constitution

Tags connections, Constitution, government, laws, parties, principles

life State

Meeting the Mayor

I was invited to a blogger breakfast this morning with Mayor Becker. After digesting the surprise and wondering how they decided who to invite (there were only 7 bloggers there) I was excited to see what it would be like. Early on the question was asked if anyone present took a conservative perspective on their blog – I felt a bit lonely but I sure enjoyed meeting some of the bloggers that I have been interacting with for quite a while.

Three things really stuck out to me during the course of the morning. First (and least importantly), it’s nice to have someone else paying for breakfast. Second, I sat next to Glen Warchol and because of my recent interest in journalism and the interaction between reporters and politics, it was fascinating to watch as Glen fired off a number of questions and followups to the mayor to start things off. My respect for the art and skill of the information gathering side of reporting increased noticeably (nothing this morning really touched on the synthesizing and word-crafting side of reporting, but my blogging has already built up my appreciation for that aspect of the process). And the third thing that really stuck out to me? That’s what this is really all about . . .

One of the major topics this morning was the issue of transparency. I really think that this blogger breakfast is a part of the mayor’s transparency initiative – it’s another way for him to try to engage people and get them invoved and connected wtih their city government. Towards the end of the meeting Glen asked all of the bloggers if any of us had sought press credentials at the capital. It occurs to me that part of transparency is making sure that we make use of the options to get information that are already available to us. None of us had sought press credentials at the capital and Glen said we should give it a try. A few of us decided to look into it.

I called Ric Cantrel this afternoon to inquire and was told that the capital was pretty open to anyone who cared to visit, the meetings were generally open to the public and the elected officials wanted to get information out in any way that they could, and finally that they don’t have a policy one way or another on giving press credentials to bloggers. Ric expressed an interest in figuring out a manageable and reasonable policy on granting credentials to bloggers and suggested that it might be useful to meet with a group of bloggers to start hammering out such a policy. I trust that Ric is genuinely interested because he has been a significant force behind The Senate Site blog which is a good source for information – especially during the legislative session.

If anyone else is interested in taking part in the discussion let me know – I’ll keep you updated as I try to set things up.

Tags blogging, connections, government, media, policy, Press Bloggers, Salt Lake City, transparency

State

Legislative Guide

I just picked up a copy of The Utah State Legislative Guide for 2009. It has a bunch of information that most people never think about (like the seating assignments for the house and senate) and then some information that could prove very valuable despite the fact that many people never think about it – such as committee assignments for each legislator.

I have never before seen such a guide (perhaps they existed in previous years, but I don’t know) so I will see if it proves useful for me. I just wondered if anyone else had ideas of how to make use of the guide during the legislative session.

I’m discovering that it’s almost aggravating to work this close to the state capitol during the legislative session without actually being there. I may have to take a day off and go up on the hill.

Tags 2009, government, Utah

culture National

News and Government

I have been reading Breaking The News and consequently thinking about the role of the media in disseminating information and the effects of that process in the political arena. I don’t know that my thoughts are fully formed here, but I had to get something down.

The media has been called the Fourth Branch of Government because of how important an informed electorate is in a system of popular government. There is certainlya lot of truth to that idea. I looked for some other perspectives on this issue and found a 2006 article that was very much opposed to the differences between members of the media and elected members of the official branches of government. I also found a 2007 article suggesting that cash is the fourth branch of government and a 2008 article that claims that the military is the fourth branch. These claims got me thinking about what it meant to have a fourth branch, and why we are so fascinated with identifying it.

Personally I would argue that cash has no will of its own and thus cannot act as a governing force. (It is simply a resource to be used in influencing people.) On the other hand, the idea of the military as a fourth branch of government is plausible. The more I have thought about it, the more I believe that there is always a hidden branch of government (meaning a tool that influences the government and the culture of a nation without being an official governing force). That tool is either religion (cultural morality), media (information), or military (force). In fact, it may be that religion may be a replacement for government (tied to the hidden branches of media or military) when it is a governing force, but not a hidden branch.

There are definitely countries where the military is that fourth branch and I am convinced that military and media both play a role in virtually every society – the fourth branch in any country being whichever of the two holds the most dominant controling position. Thankfully the media is the more dominant cultural tool in our nation (presently). So while I believe that our fourth branch has been compromised, just as each of the other three branches have also been compromised, we are still free from the tyrany that coincides with the military as the fourth branch.

I believe that the problems in our media have the same roots as the problems in our government – we the people have distanced ourselves from the source of our information and become less critical and demanding.

I’d love to hear other thoughts on this issue, but for the time being I’ll go back to ruminating.

Tags government, media, thoughts

culture

Federalist No. 46

The subject and position of Federalist No. 46 is not substantially different from Federalist No. 45 and my reaction is largely the same as before. On the other hand, Madison makes an important point that expands the scope of my reaction.

Notwithstanding the different modes in which they are appointed, we must consider both of them as substantially dependent on the great body of the citizens of the United States. . . The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes.

My initial reaction was that, like the states, the people in general are no longer guarding their liberty so much as their financial security. Some further consideration convinced me that Madison was right and that my reaction was actually an indication of the fundamental problem.

The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed {the federal and state governments}, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone

Although it is easy to feel that the government has gone out of control we must remember that we still have relatively free, fair, and regular elections. The fundamental problem which allows the government to exced their constitutional bounds is not that there are no reins, but that we the people have let go of the reins (this is especially true in places like Utah where the participation in even the most basic civic functions like voting is abysmal). The result is that our runaway horse of government is sometimes staffed by officials elected to virtually hereditary positions and while we may yell about the dangers of the course being taken by our uncontrolled stagecoach, the actual solution is for us to undertake the challenging task of grasping the reins once more and asserting our control over the horse of government. Only after we have tried our hands at the reins can the horse truly be said to be a runaway – prior to a serious attempt at control it is our own failure and not the fault of the horse.

One final quote that I really appreciated:

Measures will too often be decided according to their probable effect, not on the national prosperity and happiness, but on the prejudices, interests, and pursuits of the governments and people of the individual States. What is the spirit that has in general characterized the proceedings of Congress? A perusal of their journals, as well as the candid acknowledgments of such as have had a seat in that assembly, will inform us, that the members have but too frequently displayed the character, rather of partisans of their respective States, than of impartial guardians of a common interest;

Interestingly, the final protection against a federal takeover of the lives of the citizens (as cited by Madison) is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. An alarmist would be quick to take every attempt to regulate the keeping of arms by private individuals as a fundamental threat to individual liberty – and their alarm would not be without legitimate foundation.

Tags civic participation, documents, federalist, government, history

culture State

Who Should Adopt?

The debate over who should be allowed to adopt a child is a sensitive one. We have a system which tries to provide the best situation to children in need of good families, but there are more children than available families under the current definition. I think it is natural to be skeptical of the idea that we should let unwed partners adopt because that opens a door for some very unstable situations which are not beneficial to the children involved. The gay community (those that are interested in this particular issue) consider this to be discrimination because in this state all gay couples are unwed by definition. Of Rep. Rebecca Chavez-Houck’s "Forever Homes for Every Child" bill Senate President-elect Michael Waddoups accurately identifies the major objection/hurdle by saying:

That sounds like they’re trying to set up a family relationship that under [Utah’s same-sex marriage ban] isn’t allowed. … If we’re going to change the definition of a family, we should do it constitutionally — not through end runs.

Even if this is not intended as an end run around our Constitutional ban on gay marriage it will easily be perceived as such. The proposed bill gives adoption preference for married couples – which respects our value favoring a traditional family structure – but it opens the door for adoption by unwed couples with the consent of the biological parent(s) or if the child is in state custody. I believe that one minor modification the bill would support our value of granting primacy to the institution of family in this state. Simply put – I do not trust the state to make the decision to allow unwed couples to adopt children. If this proposal were changed to allow an unwed person or couple to adopt a child only "with the consent of the biological parent(s) and any legal guardian" I would fully support it.

The couple cited in the article is a biological mother (using a sperm donation) and her partner who are the only family their child has ever known. It makes perfect sense that the partner would be allowed to adopt and naturally the biological mother would grant the necessary consent. This change in the proposal would allow the biological parent(s) to specify one unmarried person or both members of an unwed couple as potential adoptive parents. It would allow the state or an established legal guardian to block such an adoption where the biological parent(s) choice of adoptive parents may be undesirable. Most importantly it would prevent the state from selecting unwed couples or individuals as adoptive parents for children who’s biological parent(s) objects or who do not have biological parents to speak in their defense or grant the necessary consent.

Tags adoption, family, government, Salt Lake Tribune, Utah