Skip to content

[Constitutional] Amendments

We have them.  Republicans are clearly aware of this, as noted by the oft-cited second and tenths such item.  (Well, half the of the second, anyway.) There’s also this:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Unfortunately, Republicans are apparently unaware of this one, since recent legislation in both Arizona and Oklahoma rather clearly violate what is stated here.  Granted, it is all the way down the page at number 14… maybe they didn’t get that far.

  1. Legion | May 20, 2010 at 10:11 pm | Permalink

    Of course, in CT, we know all about this amendment. Thank god, Senators Lieberman (WTF-CT) and Brown (R-MA) are supporting the Terrorist Expatriation Act which lets the government revoke your citizenship if you ever finance or give resources to any groups on a list defined by the Secretary of State. Progress!

Quick test

In any immigration reform debate, I think there’s a quick test each participant should undergo: In a few sentences, explain why Mexican immigration should be limited.
Pencils down. Does your response contain the word “Spanish”? Congratulations, you might be racist!

Legislating in bad faith

Can somebody explain to me how this new Arizona immigration law is not a blatant 4th Amendment violation?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The legislators who supported this law don’t care if it stands. They’ve already scored their political points. Brace for speeches in the next election accusing Democrats of taking jobs away from Real Americans and giving them to brown people. They even score a bonus by getting to blame “liberal judges” for violating the “will of the people”!

Yeah. This is a good plan.

The Con-sti-tu-tion

Minnesota Senate Republicans have introduced an amendment to the state Constitution that would require the legislature to “approve” federal laws before they would take effect.

A month ago, Virginia passed a law forbidding health insurance mandates. So did Idaho. Similar measures are on the ballots for voter approval in Arizona and Florida.

Proponents of these bills are flying their efforts under the banner of  the Tenth Amendment, claiming to be defenders of  the Constitution. They seem to have trouble remembering the supremacy clause in Article VI, though.

This is really bizarre. I thought we more or less settled this whole nullification issue back when Andrew Jackson was president. Sure, after that whole episode, there was still some lingering doubt… but my understanding is that there was a thing from 1861-1865 that cleared it all up, from a legal standpoint.

  1. Legion | April 24, 2010 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    I continue to never understand the prevalence of the Rebel flag. I’ll grant you that it’s technically part of their “history” and all, but since when did fighting a losing war against America and killing thousands of your brethren in favor of states’ rights (to have slavery) count as patriotic?

    Follow-up question: Borders are a funny thing. Like when you cross into Nova Scotia, you’re suddenly in the South of Canada. Somehow this explains why the annual exhibition halls of Lawrencetown, NS, are constantly filled with the Rebel flag as well. America, Jr. has many notions about which wars they fought.

  2. nepharis | April 25, 2010 at 1:06 am | Permalink

    PHONY PATRIOTISM IS JINGOISM

Cheap thought

Obama better remember his paperwork next time he does a campaign event in Arizona.

A whole party of Joe the Plumbers

This NYT article chronicles the adventures of a band of recently-unemployed Americans who are relying on unemployment insurance and Social Security to keep them afloat while they … protest “government handouts”. The author must have had a devil of  time trying to keep the snark subtle.

Mr. Grimes, who receives Social Security, has filled the back seat of his Mercury Grand Marquis with the literature of the movement, including Glenn Beck’s “Arguing With Idiots” and Frederic Bastiat’s “The Law,” which denounces public benefits as “false philanthropy.”

“If you quit giving people that stuff, they would figure out how to do it on their own,” Mr. Grimes said.

I assume he’ll figure out how to do it any day now.

This naturally supports Jon Stewart’s theory of why crazy points of view dominate the news:

People that have ideology, people that believe, that is their lives. The people that went down to Florida and taped their mouths shut and wrote ‘LIFE’ on them don’t have shit to do.

  1. nepharis | March 28, 2010 at 1:17 am | Permalink

    Damnit, now I’m going to have to go listen to the Jon Stewart stand-up again.

Good News, Everyone!

I’ve been hoping for quite some time now that the end result of the extremism of the tea party movement would be a schism in the Republican party, and eventually a more moderate, legitimately fiscal conservative group taking the reigns. The time scale for shifts in party ideology are obviously quite large, but if reports are to be believed, we may be seeing the beginnings of this already.  With congressional Dems finally proving they have the cojones to pass some serious legislation, we could very soon start seeing some Republicans break off from the Party of No and start a Party of Maybe.   That said, it could also just be posturing.  A man can dream, though, a man can dream…

Republican Health Care Tells

Mary Matalin was on The Colbert Report tonight, and after she was done lying about “deem and pass”, she talked about Republicans’ plans for “repealing” the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka: health care reform). Here’s a tip for seeing through Republican talking points on health care; if they preface their statements by claiming that they’ll keep the ban on use of pre-existing conditions, they’re bluffing. Any Republican that insists on keeping new consumer protections is tacitly admitting they’re resigned to tinkering around the edges of the bill.

The core of the PPCA is three interdependent components: tough regulations for health insurance providers, an individual mandate, and subsidies to lower-income individuals. By conceding that the regulations have to stay, Republicans are essentially conceding the
entire framework of the bill.

As Paul Krugman has pointed out, PPCA is a balancing act. If you aren’t going to repeal the new regulations, there’s no way insurers will allow the repeal of the mandate. If the mandate is repealed but the regulations are left, many people won’t buy insurance at all, and will wait until they get sick to buy
coverage. This will drive the insurers out of business. So, unless Republicans are looking to go to war with the business community, they’ll keep the mandate intact.

At this point, Republicans have already conceded two-thirds of the structure of the bill. The one component we haven’t discussed yet is the subsidies, and how to pay for them, but last time Republicans were unopposed in power, they weren’t able to make a dent in spending on
social safety net programs. The best they were able to do is keep spending the same and shift the funding burden from taxes to deficit spending. Doing this to PPCA would be unhealthy (see also: the squandering of the Clinton surplus), but wouldn’t come remotely close to undermining the bill as a whole. As far as I can tell, once a Republican concedes the new regulations, they concede 90% of PPCA is here to stay.

I’m starting a count of what I’ll call the “Cornyn bluffers”, the Republicans that bluster about repealing health care reform while implicitly admitting that they will, at most, tinker around the edges. John Cornyn was the charter member of this coalition, and Matalin joined last night. Who will be next?

  1. Aerion | March 25, 2010 at 2:21 am | Permalink

    Of course, the bluffers never mention when, specifically, they’re planning to repeal anything. Getting 67 votes to repeal it next year would require winning about 10 Democratic Senate seats that aren’t up for election. Getting 60 votes to repeal it in 2013 would still require two wave elections crazier than the two we just had. And the Presidency, of course.

    By 2013, nobody will care any more, anyway. But like most lies and wishful thinking, it’s a pretty effective way to raise quick cash for November…

Lovely parting gifts

I’m not saying the reconciliation bill isn’t important, but scuttling it would be a little like winning the NIT.

  1. Pinyan | March 24, 2010 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

    Killing the reconciliation bill would also be bad policy AND bad politics. Hate the state-by-state deals that were worked out (I refuse to use the myriad “cute” names the GOP came up with)? This is your chance to remove them! Republicans, nothing you do is going to prevent HCR from taking effect, it’s been signed. But you can make it suck less by approving the reconciliation package. If you vote against it, and it fails, YOU will be the reason why Louisiana (and Hawaii), Florida, Nebraska, Montana, etc. have the special treatment you despise. And I’d really fucking hope Democrats would air ads to that effect six months from now.

    Not. Holding. My breath.

  2. Aerion | March 24, 2010 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

    Yeah, that’s what I meant by “winning the NIT”. Great job, you scored a minor victory that has no meaning in the grand scheme of things because your opponents already won the Big Dance.

    OK, so it’s not a very good metaphor, but it’s an excuse to make fun of the NIT.

Cheap Thought

<Aerion> I want a tracking poll question like, “Do you agree, disagree, strongly agree, or strongly disagree with the following statement: Barack Obama gets shit done.”