Constitution

arnold’s Amendment

This entry was posted in Constitution on by

Thank goodness these constitutional amendments have a high approval bar and usually take a while to get the necessary state ratifications:

Now, as Austrian-born Arnold Schwarzenegger chases the governorship of the most populous state, the House and Senate are weighing proposals for a constitutional amendment that would allow a naturalized citizen to become president. But Schwarzenegger’s candidacy is only a side issue in the debate.
The question turns on whether a decision by the framers of the Constitution more than 200 years ago remains relevant in today’s more inclusive America, one in which the foreign-born population is at an all-time high.

Arnold should be old, frail and limp by the time this gets its final vote.
The proposed amendment does have bipartisan support:

Conservatives such as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and liberals such as Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) favor opening the presidency to immigrants. Hatch’s bill would allow people who have been citizens at least 20 years to hold the office, while Frank is supporting a House bill with a 35-year citizenship requirement.
“I think it’s a mistake to have that in the Constitution,” Frank said of the current limitation. “It’s reflective of a double standard that somehow immigrants aren’t fully equal with people born here.”

It is reflective of a standard and I don’t thank it is any more problematic a standard then the age limitations. The debate should be interesting and I think I will start out with the conservative position that this isn’t broken so we don’t need to fix it.
On the other hand what a delicious thought: watching how his rightside supporters respond to arnold’s behaviour as president. I suspect he’d make clinton look like an innocent.
Via Body and Soul.
Oh, and go over to Skippy’s to see ‘a movie poster for ah’nold’s latest flick.’

Taxing our Children

This entry was posted in Constitution Economics Libertarianism Taxation on by

Ok, I admit to stealing the title from this Craig Cheslog post which discusses the burden we are placing on our children and likely their children by allowing unnecessary deficits and spending large sums on misplaced policy agendas.
I wonder too about taxing our children today. You all know the principle of no taxation without representation. Why then do we allow federal, state and local governments to tax people who have not yet reached voting age?

Do Not Call is Blocked

This entry was posted in Constitution on by

The RIAA at least has some moral justification for their position vis-a-vis unauthorized downloading and sharing.
The Direct Marketing Assocation has none vis-a-vis their clients harrassing us in our homes. This federal court should be overruled and this attitude:

“The Direct Marketing Association and its fellow plaintiffs are grateful that the federal District Court in Oklahoma City understood and upheld the industry’s belief that the Federal Trade Commission does not have authority to implement and enforce a national do-not-call list,”

is not echoed by the 50,000,000 households eagerly awaiting October 1.
Via Dohiyi Mir.
Update 9/24: BHW explains many of our thoughts on this explicitly.

It’s ok, we didn’t use it…

This entry was posted in ashcroft Constitution Domestic Terrorism Law Patriot Act Privacy on by

At Talkleft Jeralyn Merritt asks:

As to the library records, if none have been requested in the aftermath of 9/11, why does the Government need the power to get them?

A few points:

1) Sure, lack of use is a reason to strike this from the books. But why exempt just library records?
2) ashcroft’s statement speaks only to library records which are the most visible issue but not the only things that Section 215 subject to star chamber searches:

may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities

3) The no use argument obscures the more basic issue: this power should never have been enacted into law. Something is broken in a system that even allows such a proposal to see the light of day.

And Jacob Sullum gets Zero Reassurance from ashcroft’s ‘no use’ assertion. Sullum notes:

the government is making liberal use of another PATRIOT Act provision with even looser requirements. Under Section 505, the Justice Department, including FBI field offices, can issue “national security letters” demanding telephone, Internet, credit, and bank records. This power has been used enough times in the last two years to fill a five-page, blacked-out list obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union under the Freedom of Information Act.

There is a lot more objectionable stuff in the patriot act. Let’s just scrap the whole thing except for maybe Section 600 which deals with ‘providing for victems’ which should have been handled separately anyway.