Tag: issues

Massive Do-Over

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

I have been thinking and reading about political issues like congressional seats for Utah and Washington DC, where America currently stands on abortion, and the complexity and complaints about unfairness in our tax system. I’d love to write a post about almost all of these topics, but then I got to thinking – what if we just started over.

Pretend that we put a freeze on federal law and started a constitutional convention to rewrite our government from the ground up. We would rewrite the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. All federal agencies would be scrapped although the military and others employed by the current agencies could probably expect that many of them would have similar opportunities under the new system. We would appoint a fresh slate of leaders – no consideration of when their terms would have ended under the current system because we might not even have the same positions available in the new system.

Now I’m not saying that we should do this, I’m asking what might happen if we did.

My own suspicion is that we would keep the structure of a bicameral legislative branch as well as an executive branch and a judicial branch. Beyond that, what would be said of issues like abortion or who has what kind of representation? What new balance of power would emerge between federal and state governments? At least two Constitutional amendments would disappear (because they cancel each other out) but would more go? WhatÂ social issues might show up as new amendments?

Help me out here – what do you think this would produce? Does it differ from what you think it should produce?

Tags Constitution, issues, theory

General

Community Activism

I have been involved with a citizens group which is initially acting out of concern over some of the proposals for the Mountain View Corridor. We have met with representatives of UDOT to voice our concerns and today we received the report that they are now more seriously investigating/considering the options which we viewed more favorably for the project – namely the northern freeway alignments. We know that our job is not finished, but it is nice to see that we can have an impact when we get together.

I have previously mentioned this group, and I briefly had a poll on this site where the group could choose an official name. That is still ongoing, but I would like to talk a little more about the group as an example of how democracy and activism should work. First of all, it is local. Activism on a national level has its place, but too often issues which should be managed locally are getting shoved onto a larger stage. Second, the purpose of the group is not a single issue – such as the road we are discussing right now. Our purpose is to help create the best community that we can. Having a goal that is too narrow tends to create short-lived groups, or else the groups are prone to make poor choices that forward their view at the cost of a greater benefit that can be achieved. We hope that by actively considering the long-term good of our community and by proactively working with those who make decisions that affect us we will be able to avoid making choices that are good in the short term but which we will have to correct or reverse later.

This initial impact on the road gives us hope that we can be an influence for good now and in the future.

Tags community, issues, transportation

National State

Back Door Legislation or The Root of Judicial Activism

Post author By David
Post date October 6, 2005
2 Comments on Back Door Legislation or The Root of Judicial Activism

If there is anyone who still reads this blog they will be well aware that I have been lousy at posting anything in the last month or so. I have been working on various other projects and purposely leaving this site dormant for the present, but I am compelled to post after I heard that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is hearing a lawsuit on gay marriage. The court is being used as a vehicle to try to get a 1913 law thrown out which prevents the state from issuing marriage licenses to couples who are not residents of Massachusetts if their marriage would not be recognized in their home states.The argument is that the law is being used to discriminate against gay couples. Unfortunately this is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If the law is being used to discriminate against gays then it should be applied equitably rather than being repealed. These plaintiffs need to prove that heterosexual couples who would not be allowed to marry a home are being given marriage licenses in Massachusetts.

It is easy to see that the agenda operating behind this is not deterred by state boundaries. This is nothing more than a step to legalize gay marriage throughout the country. If this suit succeeds there will be couples from around the country who come to Massachusetts to marry and then complain in their home states that they are facing discrimination. Nobody can argue that this is not the case because the plaintiffs include eight out of state couples. This will happen despite the fact that there is already a federal law stating that one state is not obligated to recognize marriages performed in another state.

I will attempt to walk a very fine line here. I do not wish this to be viewed as a homophobic posting. Unfortunately I cannot claim to know and love a large number of gay people (that would strengthen my argument) but I would hope that it can be said that I treat all gay people with whom I come in contact with the same respect that any human being deserves. I might add that this is the same respect which I withold from bigots of every type. I abhor bigotry and hope never to be guilty of it. That being said I want to address this suit in the light of judicial activism.

Suits like this are the very thing that give rise for judges to exercise any pre-disposisiton towards judicial activism. If this suit has merit the proper course of action would be to have the law rewritten or applied fairly. The plaintiffs have expressed their intention – which is to have the law annulled. If they fully win their case activist judges on the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts can use it as an excuse to rule that the law be removed rather than corrected and enforced properly.

Anyone who nievely argues that this case stops at Massachusetts must ask themselves what a gay couple gains by going to Massachusetts to get married if they then return to their home state knowing that their marriage will not be recognized. The answer is that they gain nothing except more leverage in their fight to legalize gay marriage in their home states. This is not the correct way to go about changing the law. If you want a legal gay marriage move somewhere that it is already legal. If you want to legalize gay marriage live within the bounds of the law and push for legislation to make gay marriage legal where you live.

We have an estalished process for the passage of laws. If a majority of people believe in something it will become law. We have checks in place to minimize the chance for majorities to trample the rights of minorities, but the judicial system is to interpret law and not write it through opinion. If the 1913 law should be repealed that should happen through a vote of the legislature or a ballot initiative. Even Gov. Schwarzenegger understood that when he vetoed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage because the people of California had already passed a proposition stating that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The governor argued rightly that “We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote.” It can also be said that we cannot have a system where the people vote and judges derail the vote once it has passed by a super-majority.

Tags courts, gay marriage, issues, Massachusetts, reactions

technology

Time for a Poll

In our country, which is run by polls anyway, I think that it is time to take a poll to find out Is Cheap Broadband Un-American? According to the article “cities . . . recognized broadband access as a basic public utility—no different from water, gas or electricity—that they could provide.” So the question is, what defines a public utility. Telephone and cable have been considered quasi-utilities and they have been regulated accordingly. We should take a poll to see if internet access has penetrated the population more deeply than telephone or cable access. I think it’s pretty close. Not only that, but cities can provide internet access much more easily than they could provide other communications options.

I have written about this topic multiple times so my position should be clear that internet access and broadband should either be regulated or provided by the government because the industry refuses to play nice with customers.

Tags connections, issues

General

More Daylight

What difference will more daylight savings make to those of us outside of Arizona? Not much that I can see.

If the politicians want to pass this I don’t mind it. I would love to use more sunlight, but let’s not fool ourselves that this will make a big difference in our oil consumption. If we save 10,000 barrels per day for an extra five weeks out of the year it would take us 57 years to save one day’s worth of oil at 20 million barrels per day (our current usage level) so it will not make us noticably less dependent on the Arabian peninsula.

Tags issues, oil, reactions

General

When Will We See the Light

It is about time that we acknowledged the truth of what happens when Lobbyists have so much sway in our system of government. I don’t think there is anything else to say after what Mr. Lessig wrote. This is more than simply the access to broadband that I have written about previously. In both the specific case and the general trend we must take back democracy so that it is not subsumed by capitalism.

Tags connections, issues, lobbying

technology

As I Was Saying

I had a thought when I posted Excess Capacity. Now I have seen this story in a few different places and I cannot stay silent on the subject. Basically, the story can be summed up like so:

“Whether building a wireless system, installing fiber directly to homes, or exploring broadband over power lines – or some combination of these options – local communities are finding they can get better service for less money if they do it themselves.

“Big telecom and cable companies have responded by furiously working to slam the door on community wireless. The telephone and cable giants are trying to use their lobbying clout in state capitals to pre-empt local control, preserve higher prices and preclude competition.” (thanks to Matt Barton for quoting this perfect synopsis from Freepress.net)

Everybody should realize that the telecom companies have nothing to gain when municipalities prove that broadband can be affordable. Somehow they need to be held to the standard of capitalist doctrine and forced to actually compete to create a system that provides the best service possible for the lowest price. If the municipalities can offer equal service for less than the telecoms then the telecoms should get out of the business.

Tags connections, issues, lobbying

technology

Excess Capacity

I enjoyed reading about the Laffer Curve as it relates to taxes. I found it especially interesting because I have been thinking about the Sam Walton approach being applied to broadband internet access. I admit that I am wishing that I had bradband access at home and claiming (privately until now) that dialup internet access is no longer considered reasonable access to the internet.

We have the technology and the capacity to deliver broadband to everybody. I realized that this went even farther than broadband. We have 6% of our workforce not working right now and we have people who do not have access to every good thing that they want because of prohibitive costs (college students have plenty of use for broadband, but can rarely afford to pay $50 per month to pay for it). I am convinced that both telephone providers and cable providers could still make a profit on broadband while offering it for $20 per month – which would be affordable enought to virtually eliminate dialup service.

Wait for a later post where I will list some of the benefits that I see of having universal access to broadband.

Tags broadband, issues, lobbying

General

Nugget of Truth

It is not often that I agree with Maureen Dowd more than grudgingly, but in her article about female interrogators torturing detainees in Iraq I found myself agreeing with her without reservation. She put the perfect perspective in one sentence: “However the Bush White House is redefining torture these days, the point is this: Such behavior degrades the women who are doing it, the men they are doing it to, and the country they are doing it for.”

There is no other point that could be made. It would be better in the long run to not have the intelligence gotten by such deplorable means then to stoop to such a level of depravity.

Tags Iraq, issues, New York Times, torture

National

The Fastest Way Out

I drive around the city and see a smattering of yard signs saying “Bring the troops home now.” I feel that those who post the signs do not care about the welfare of the Iraqis. No matter how bad their lives are now with insurgents, the worst course of action we could take would be to walk away right now. After reading Friedman’s “Pop-Tarts or Freedom?” I had an interesting thought about those who display those signs. Undoubtedly those who post the signs disagree with the Bush administration regarding the war in Iraq. Friedman suggests that the fastest way to get the troops home is to hold elections. If people believe that then these people who don’t support the administration would have to support the stance of the administration in not postponing the Iraqi elections.

Tags international, Iraq, issues