Darryl Cherness asked:


As election day draws near, it appears extremely likely that Barack Obama will be elected the next President of the United States. In addition, there is a general consensus, even among Republicans, that the Democrats will pickup seats in congress and may even obtain a “filibuster proof” majority in the Senate.

Currently, the Democrats have 49 seats in the Senate. In addition to those 49 seats, there are 2 independents, Joe Lieberman and Bernard Sanders, who caucus with the Democrats, effectively giving them a 51 seat majority. However, in order to get anything done in the Senate, 60 votes are needed to break Republican sponsored filibusters, the process of talking a bill to death and preventing action on urgently needed legislation.

There is general agreement, given the state of the economy, that 2008 will be a Democratic year. If Democrats pick up 5 seats in the Senate, the minimum they are projected to win, they will have 56 votes and will only need 4 Republican votes to break a filibuster. However, if the Democrats pick up 9 votes, difficult but not impossible, they will be able to shut off debate without crossover Republican votes.

What will it mean for the labor movement to have a filibuster proof, Democratic majority in the Senate?

First and foremost, it means that the Employee Free Choice Act will be enacted into law. The Democratic congress will vote for the Employee Free Choice Act and send that legislation to President Barack Obama who will sign it into law. Once the Employee Free Choice Act becomes law and management can no longer manipulate company based representation elections, it is a safe bet that there should be a significant increase in the number of union represented employees in the United States.

In addition to the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, a strong Democratic majority in congress can be counted on to periodically raise the federal minimum wage for the working poor. Hopefully, the days of having to wait nine years for small increases in the minimum wage should become a relic of the past.

Other areas where significant changes can be anticipated include revisions in NAFTA to make it more labor friendly, the elimination of tax incentives to encourage American businesses to relocate overseas, greater regulation of the home loan industry to prevent a reoccurrence of the “subprime” housing debacle, and tax breaks for middle income wage earners.

Another significant change will come in the area of job creation. Unlike George Bush, Senator Obama has made it clear that he intends to spend significant sums of money on promoting renewable energy such as wind, solar, and geothermal energy. The expenditure of these funds should create thousands of new jobs for working men and women.

Finally, it is my belief that it is absolutely inevitable that the Democratic congress and the new Democratic president will allocate significant resources for “public works” projects; i.e. repair of infrastructure such as roads, bridges, sewers, water treatment plants, etc. Rather than rely on the marketplace to generate wealth that will “trickle down” to the masses, Obama and the Democratic congress will take direct action to stimulate our economy and return our nation to prosperity by means of these job creating projects.

I believe that the next four years may very well be recorded by historians as labor’s new “golden age.”

Add A Comment

Logged in as Darryl Cherness. Logout »

Garry Gamber asked:


The filibuster has been a tool available to U.S. Senators during Senate floor discussions on legislation and appointments since the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have valued the filibuster as a means to bring compromise and bipartisanship to bitter and divisive debates.

The word, filibuster, as it applies to the American political process refers to a political delaying tactic such as a long speech used by politicians to delay or prevent the passage of legislation. The older meaning of filibuster refers to the illegal act of plundering or piracy; of capturing a ship and its cargo and holding it for ransom.

The etymology of the word, filibuster, seems to date back to about 1560-1570 when the English anglicized the Dutch word, vrijbutier, into freebooter. A freebooter is understood to be a person who goes in search of plunder; a pirate, a buccaneer. Shortly thereafter, the French adopted filibustier and the Spanish adopted filibustero to mean the same thing. In the 17th century the English transformed the Spanish word into filibuster to describe the actions of the pirates who attacked the Spanish explorers of the New World. In the 1800’s the Americans popularized the word filibuster, referring to the activities of famous pirates operating in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Filibuster as Piracy

From 1830 to 1860 the countries of Cuba, Mexico, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua were all victims of various filibuster campaigns. The filibusters were led by groups of adventurers who, without the consent of the American Government, but with the aid of private American finance, tried to seize political power in these Latin American and Caribbean countries. Part of the aim of the filibuster campaigns was to empower the population of these countries and bring forth a revolution that would be beneficial to American interests, mainly the slave trade.

Financial support for the filibusters came largely from the southern states where parades of celebration were held in their honor and songs were written about their adventures. Officially, the U.S. did not support the filibuster campaigns because the military was spread too thin to be able to provide adequate enforcement of the laws against the involvement. Many citizens saw the campaigns as an aspect of “manifest destiny,” the idea that America had a right to unlimited expansion.

A couple of famous filibusterers include Narciso Lopez and William Walker. Lopez liberated Venezuela from Spanish rule and attempted three times to liberate Cuba. Walker, from Tennessee, annexed parts of Mexico, including Lower California, and declared himself to be president. The U.S. government did not support Walker and eventually brought him to trial.

The era of the Filibuster Movement ended when the U.S. Civil War started. Attention and resources were given to the defense of the North and the South, ending the efforts of the filibuster campaigns.

Filibuster as a Political Tool

During the period from 1840 to 1860, numerous Southern politicians made long speeches during Senate floor debates on legislation bills for the purpose of delaying the bill or preventing a vote on the bill. The word filibuster was borrowed to describe these speeches, which were thought of as piracy of time and opportunity. Henry Clay, in 1841, gave what is considered to be the first filibuster speech.

As the debate over the slavery issue became more important in Congress, southern politicians used the tactic of long dilatory speeches to block all civil rights legislation. The word filibuster became popularized during this pre-Civil War period.

Legislative Rules

The U.S. Constitution did not give direction to the House of Representatives or to the Senate regarding how to conduct everyday business and how to conduct debates on the floor. Each body was expected to create and adopt their own rules.

On day 2 of the first Senate meeting a special committee was created to “prepare a system of rules for conducting business.” A few days later, on April 7, 1789, the special committee filed their first rules report and on April 16, 1789, the Senate adopted their first set of rules. The first set contained 19 rules and on April 18 number 20 was adopted. At this point the special committee was disbanded.

The rules committee was recreated on several occasions during succeeding years for the purpose of creating new rules or revising existing rules. Since 1789 there have been 7 adoptions of new or revised rules; in 1806, 1820, 1828, 1877, 1884, and 1979. Some rules have been amended and passed by the Senate without going to a committee. The change to Rule XXII in 1917 to provide for a cloture procedure is a good example. There currently are a total of 43 Standing Rules of the Senate.

The House Rules and Manual of the U.S. House of Representatives does not allow for filibuster speeches. Each Representative is allowed to hold the floor to debate a question for one hour and may only speak once on each question. The House is a large body and the members thought it wise to limit the amount of time that a Representative may speak.

The Senate is an entirely different situation, however.

Senate Rule XIX

Rule XIX is the key rule that provides a structure for debate on the Senate floor. A key provision of the rule states that when a Senator rises to seek recognition during floor debate, he or she is guaranteed a chance to speak on the question for as long as he or she wishes. The presiding officer is not given discretion in this matter and must recognize each Senator in order. During the period of time that a recognized Senator is speaking the question before the Senate cannot come to a vote. The Senator cannot be interrupted or be forced to stop their speech without their consent.

Debate Rule XIX does not limit the number of Senators who may speak on an issue. The rule does, however, limit each Senator to two speeches per legislative day on each issue. During a filibuster period the presiding officer will typically call a recess rather than an adjournment at the end of the calendar day, keeping the legislative day alive when the Senate reconvenes. This tactic effectively limits each Senator to a maximum of two speeches on each issue. It is possible, however, for a Senator to offer an amendment in order to create a new debatable question, on which the Senators may make two more speeches.

A relatively recent provision in Rule XIX, called the “Pastore Rule” in honor of Senator John Pastore of Rhode Island, requires that debate on a question must be germane to the question. During filibuster periods this rule is enforced to prevent Senators from making meaningless, off-topic speeches. During the 1930’s through the 1950’s several Senators, such as Huey Long and Strom Thurmond made long filibusters which included readings of recipes, the Congressional Record, the Declaration of Independence, and other non-germane topics.

While a Senator is speaking on an issue he or she must remain standing and must speak more or less continuously. During a filibuster-length speech this requirement creates fatigue in the speaker. However, the speaker may yield to a question from another Senator without losing the floor. The other Senator can provide relief by asking a very long question followed by a short answer, followed by more long questions. In this manner a group of Senators can work together to extend the length of a Senator’s speaking period.

Senate Rule XXII

The procedures for invoking cloture for purposes of wrapping up the floor debate and bringing the question to a vote are contained in Rule XXII. The process requires a motion that is signed by at least 16 Senators and presented to the presiding officer while the question is being debated. The rule requires that the cloture motion must be seasoned, meaning that it cannot be acted upon until the second day after it is presented.

One hour after the cloture motion has matured on the third day the presiding officer interrupts the Senate proceedings and presents the cloture motion to the Senate for a vote. At this point an automatic roll call vote is required.

In 1975 the Senate voted to change the number of votes needed to invoke cloture to 60% from the previous 67%. A compromise was struck, however, because some Senators feared that if changing the Rule was too easy that the majority needed to invoke cloture might be reduced further in the future. Therefore, the Senate agreed that to make future rule changes, including changing the cloture rule itself, would require the traditional 67% majority vote.

If the motion to invoke cloture is defeated the Senators can reconsider the vote or file a new motion to invoke cloture. For example, in 1988 there were eight cloture motions on a campaign finance reform bill and all eight motions were defeated.

If a motion to invoke cloture is successful, then the effect of invoking cloture only guarantees that a vote on the question will take place eventually, but not immediately. After the successful cloture motion has passed the Senate is said to be working under cloture. Rule XXII imposes a maximum cap of 30 additional hours for debate, quorum calls, parliamentary inquiries, and other proceedings prior to an actual vote on the question. During this cloture period each Senator is entitled to speak for a total of not more than one hour.

Once cloture has been invoked under Rule XXII, the point of a filibuster is largely lost. Without exception, proceedings are wrapped up in less than 30 hours and the question is brought to a vote.

Conclusion

The filibuster speech in the Senate has enjoyed a long tradition and has been used for several purposes. On one hand the filibuster has been used to persuade others of the validity of the minority position on a question. Open and unlimited debate can change minds and sway opinion. The filibuster speech process may help to defeat an issue once a vote is taken.

On the other hand, the filibuster has been used to stall or prevent a vote on an issue. The filibuster speech or the threat of a filibuster may cause the issue to be tabled or withdrawn and not brought to a vote on the floor.

The minority party in the Senate counts on the use of the filibuster as a means to prevent the majority party from wielding too much influence. Such a tool encourages the two major parties in the Senate to work in nonpartisan ways to resolve differences. The filibuster creates a need for compromise. It has been suggested that without the filibuster tool the Senate would be much less productive in producing legislation.

Bob Patterson asked:


All of the recent polls show favorable numbers for President Obama as a person. He appears to be a very nice individual with a wonderful family. What isn’t being reported is that while his popularity is high so too are the numbers reflecting a distrust of his policies.

Our country is in serious financial shape and is looking towards Washington for guidance and direction. When everything started down a long slippery slope, Obama was touting the idea that Wall Street has nothing but rich individuals that are responsible for the financial fiasco. This rich versus the common man syndrome sounds eerily familiar to what a dictator was espousing in Germany in order to gain power in the late 30’s. It worked then and it appears to be working now. For an understanding of this just look at the recent G-20 Summit held in England. What you had was a great deal of protesters who broke windows on banks and occupied their offices. Of course the rich caused the problems. Didn’t they?

Everything seemed to have come to a head with the bonuses paid to executives of American International Group. According to The Washington Post on-line (May 13, 2009) the Federal Reserve Bank of New York knew about the details of the bonus structure “more than five months before the firestorm erupted.” I can certainly understand why some might be upset with what was happening but based on contractual arrangements the government should not have attempted to intervene. The idea that AIG was paying bonuses made for a fantastic headline and gave political ammunition to Obama. The question is why shouldn’t contracts be honored? Just remember that if Obama can bring heat to one organization he can bring it to yours. In an article “AIG bonus blackmail and resignations” (www.thedeal.com/dealscape/2009/03/aig_bonus_blackmail/; March 26, 2009) provides part of a letter from one of the bonus receiving executives.

“I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.”

How many of you would work for an annual salary of $1? Were these managers let down? You bet you. According to Earmon Javers (Politico; 4/3/2009) wrote that the president stated “my administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks” when talking to a group of CEOs of various financial institutions as they tried explaining their high salaries. His administration did very little to stop the “pitchforks” when bus loads of people went on a tour of AIG homes sponsored by ACORN.

One must remember that Washington set the stage for an economic meltdown through the idea of a sub-prime mortgage. The idea that everyone has a right to own a home is, frankly, a bit flawed. Not everyone can afford to live in a $300,000 home. Many of our elected officials totally ignored the “hand writing on the wall” of a coming disaster. In 2004 a small group of courageous Congressmen and women attempted to change the course only to be out voted by people like Senator Harry Reid who basically said that there was nothing to worry about.

Since everyone is up in arms about AIG and other organizations receiving bonuses, let’s not forget that, as stated earlier, Congress started this mess and as I understand it, many of their staff members received a bonus and that all members of Congress received a pay raise. Why isn’t the public outraged? In my opinion, there are only two possible explanations. Either we are a bunch of sheep or the media did not do their job in reporting this. What do you think?

With the age of the Internet and fast transportation the world is shrinking. No longer can we simply compete at home but we must have a global presence. In order to do that we must hire the best of the best and they are not going to work for low salaries. If Obama and his dictatorial style continues (defining pay and compensation) many more firms will cease to exist as we know them. These bright individuals will start working for “boutique shops” where they can be justly rewarded for their labors.

In order to be competitive we must hire the best. This is why the NFL spends a great deal of money on top quality athletes for the hopes of winning the Super Bowl.

In this country you can go as far as your dreams take you. You too can be rewarded for your hard work. Anyone can become rich if they so choose.

After the brow beating that AIG took next came the firing of a CEO, the supposed takeover of banks, the strong governmental recommendation that a car company merge with Fiat, the prevention of early stimulus loan pay offs, handing controlling interest of a company to UAW membership, etc. all in the realm of righting the financial community and getting people back to work. The question is, what part of the Constitution gives the president the authority to carry out such actions? All of these plans are being formulated without debate and/or public input.

Seems like the time President Obama spends traveling the country he is doing it for one purpose and that is to get re-elected. All of his stops seem to have the same campaign feel and flavor that we saw last year. When he travels overseas this is nothing more than an apologetic tour. I never thought that I would see the day when a President would cower at the feet of a dictator like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Sure we have made some mistakes but we are still the greatest nation on earth. Our free enterprise system, constitution and our general way of life make a lot of people and nations extremely envious of the United States. They may **** us one day then something happens and who do they turn too? Other nations are mad and blame us for the market meltdown. I have a clue for you. Many international markets already had difficulty before our problems erupted. An easy way to think about his trips abroad is that if I were to come to your house and you were to bad mouth my family, we would have a serious and heated exchange then I would leave. We Americans are a family and don’t have anything to be apologetic for. He didn’t have a heated discussion nor did he leave-he just apologized.

With the release of information about our interrogation techniques did nothing but put our own intelligence community at risk to say nothing of the lives of the men and women in uniform who have been called to serve in war. Sometimes the need for the public to be informed can go a bit too far when it comes to national security. He could have quietly ended a controversial program without announcing it to the world which also emboldens our enemies. Of course I forgot that Obama feels we are no longer fighting a war on terrorism. I guess that he did not read the 9-11 report. He is showing his extreme inexperience when dealing with foreign policy. In particular he wants to sit around the proverbial campfire with the very people who have sworn to kill us and wipe us off the face of the earth. Oh! Did he tell you that we are not a Christian nation either. More apologizes.

One of Obama’s early campaign promises was to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Eric Holder went on a tour of Europe to try to persuade our European allies to take some of the “enemy combatants.” This, of course, was a big flop even though they were extremely vocal about the detention facility. Again, why should we apologize? Our European partners do not want anything to do with accepting detainees. So now what is he to do? Is he going to bring them to the continental United States? I doubt that there are any congressmen that want them in their back yard with access to our court system. Once again this shows his complete lack of understanding the big picture and the role that Guantanamo serves

President Obama and members of his administration have repeatedly stated that Guantanamo is a recruiting tool for terrorist. This could be nothing further from the truth. The real tool for recruitment is a successful operation. Another way of putting this is that they have killed many people as they did on 9-11. When we are successful in infiltrating their networks, stopping their funding lines, intercepting communications, putting them behind bars (all part of the Patriot Act) and killing them severely hampers terrorist recruiting efforts. As a side note. Many on the left are against the Patriot Act even though there hasn’t been an attack in this country since 9-11.

What about his plan to nationalize the health care system? Obama has stated that he is not out to run or nationalize any organization but rather to compliment employer insurance programs. His intent is to model the system after Medicare. Let me get this straight-he wants to model a national program after a system that is poorly run and out of money. In the same breath, there is talk of taking the tax credit away from businesses that provides medical insurance. So when and if this were to happen there would be more people entered into a dysfunctional and broke system because businesses would no longer provide medical insurance. Who is going to pay for it? Obama just doesn’t get it.

Congress had a great idea about the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). In order to pay for this program they increased the Federal tax on tobacco. This is a great idea from a public health standpoint. The rise in tax will cause many to quit. If people quit tobacco the government will not take in as much as they expected to cover the cost of SCHIP. Incidentally, many city and state governments are outlawing smoking in public venues. Again, the question must be asked. When the revenue dwindles, who will pick up the additional cost? You will in some other form of tax. Only this tax would probably be applied so that even non-tobacco users would be hit.

The stimulus package was touted as providing immediate relief. So far, as I understand, only about 6% has been spent. All or almost all of this has been spent on governmental programs. Obama has continually stated that he will either save or create four million new jobs. How can you quantify the word “save?” You can’t! It is an unrealistic statement that cannot be measured. Unfortunately, this “used car” sales rhetoric is what many citizens are buying into. (I need to apologize to used car salesmen) On the other hand he can create the jobs. However, most all of them will be in government not the public sector. A president cannot create jobs in the private sector he can only provide the atmosphere in which to do it. So far he seems reluctant to take a different approach. For instance, I would go out on the limb and state that if he were to abandon his coming tax policies for corporations who do business overseas, cut the capital gains tax, and provide a short term “no tax” policy for corporations that these same corporations would begin hiring and putting people back to work. Corporations would again be lucrative-the stock market would re-bound and many individual retirement accounts would be salvaged along with more income for the federal government through individual income tax (even at a low percentage). By taking these simple measures would be a win win situation and Washington would not have to print more money thus keeping down our national debt so our future generations would not have to pay the price of liberal stupidity. Right now it appears that they (Government) are throwing money down a “sink hole” or rather the proverbial “money pit.”

Nearly every day there seems to be a new or revised policy coming out of Washington that there is so much more that could be written here. The big question that should be asked is how much of your income are YOU, the tax payer willing to “donate” to Washington?

I had heard this fable many years ago and think that it might sum up the impact of government intrusion. I am sure that there are other variations.

A farmer in Russia was walking to town during a very cold winter morning. Along the path he sees a bird just lying on the ground. He picks the bird up and notices that it is still alive. He puts the bird under his coat and continues the trek towards town. He finally gets to town and wants to go in a store. Unfortunately, there is a no animal sign posted. He wonders what he should do. He looks around notices a huge fresh manure pile. The farmer digs a small hole at the top and places the bird in it and covers him up to his neck. After a short period of time; the bird warms and starts to sing. On the outskirts of town a wolf hears the singing bird and comes in to investigate and eventually eats the bird. There are three morals to this story. First; who ever puts you in is not necessarily your enemy. Whoever takes you out is not necessarily your friend. But above all when you are up to your neck do not sing. All of us should view the wolf as government. All they want to do is devour everything that we have and will have in future years. Obama is out for himself and bigger government. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing telling you that he will listen but then does what he was planning to do all along.

J.J. Jackson asked:


Baseball may be America’s favorite pastime, but liberals have a favorite pastime of their own; stretching and warping the Constitution. They’ve been at it so long that it has become a sport which they excel at and one at which daily practice is strongly encouraged, if not already mandated, for any aspiring leftist.

Of course, they only succeed in this pursuit when discussing the Constitution amongst themselves. When they journey out into the real world they run into people like myself who have spent a lot of time discussing how they distort and down right lie about what is in the document that established our current government. When they try to engage in their favorite sport with normal Americans who are not willfully blind as to what the Constitution says and have a grasp of the English language beyond that of a first grader, they fail miserably with their spin which always leads to interesting, if not ignorant, slogans, rants and shout-fests.

Rep. John “Cut and Run” Murtha may just be finding out that he and his liberal brethren have stretched the Constitution as far as the Constitution is willing to stretch even with a healthy suspension of logic, history and basic English however. Last week, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ordered Rep. Murtha to give a sworn deposition in the case brought against him by Marine Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich relating to his unwise, ignorant and self-serving comments about the marines in Haditha participating in “cold-blooded murder and war crimes”. It is important to note that the case against these Marines has fallen apart.

Murtha’s defense, which was rejected so far by the judge, was that Murtha was immune from prosecution and even questioning about the incident because those comments were made while acting in his official role as a United States Representative. This is an apparent reference to Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution and his “interpretation” of what it says which might get by people unable to actually read the Constitution. But since I actually can, it isn’t going to fly with me and apparently not with the judge either.

For the record, Article I, Section 6 states in it’s entirety: “The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

The long and the short of this section is that if you are an elected representative of the United States in either house of Congress you cannot be arrested while the Congress is in session, nor can you be arrested while traveling to or from said session. It also grants immunity from prosecution for any “speech” or “debate” that takes place on the floor by saying that they “shall not be questioned in any other Place”. Which would include a court of law. The exceptions to this are of course given as when the Representative or Senator commits a Felony, Treason or “Breach of the Peace”.

Notice there is no exemption for acting in your “official role” beyond these limited descriptions. It is important to note at this time that John “Our Troops Are Murderers” Murtha made the statements with regards to our soldiers and promulgated his charges at places other than during a “speech” or “debate” in the House such as at press conferences and on Chris Matthew’s television program.

So is he immune? Should he not be questioned? Should he just be free to continue to make these assertions? Not unless you really, really stretch the meaning of the Constitution and read between the lines by inserting language that isn’t there. Making such statements during Speeches and Debates in the House may be deplorable and anti-American in as much that they were made without evidence and to prejudice the case against the Marines to promote John Murtha’s delusions, but his despicable acts would be protected. However once he steps out of the Halls of Congress he has no more protection.

He is not being arrested either. This is a civil suit, not a criminal matter. So again, Article I, Section 6 does not apply. Now, if he refuses the order to comply he could be faced with an arrestable offense such as contempt of court. In such a case, he had better convince the House to remain in permanent session and always be in a constant state of travel to and from the Capitol when it is to avoid arrest.

You could also make a strong case that his words provided aid and comfort to the enemy since the Haditha incident was used by our enemies against America and freedom seeking Iraqis. And since Treason is a clear exemption to this clause as well as the first amendment I certainly would be looking over my shoulder if I were Mr. Murtha.

But it’s just the Constitution. Right? And since when do liberals actually care about what the Constitution actually says? Since when do Congressmen care that their power is not unlimited? So I am sure that John “Where’s My White Flag?” Murtha will continue to whine and twist and squirm in an attempt to avoid the truth.

All the while his fellow members of Congress can continue to their smoke screen to cover their own failures. They can run cover for him and promulgate abuses of their power by waging a dog and pony show over things Rush Limbaugh didn’t even say with regards to our troops who are serving bravely over in Iraq and slamming General Patraeus and calling our troops NAZIs, stupid and anything else that they can think of. All for what? In order to try and further convince moonbats who naively believe that the troops really do agree with their stance on the war? Despite the fact that they are continually signing up and even re-upping to serve in a time of war for a mission the liberals detest so much?

Perhaps we are finally getting to a point where the Constitution has been stretched as far as it can be by the left to support their ideas and goals. But even if it has, I doubt they will stop trying to stretch it even further. At which point it is only a matter of whether it will snap back like a rubber band and leave a massive welt or completely break.

God help us if it is that latter

DR.P.SAKTHIVEL asked:


Parliamentary democracy was adopted in India after a purposive and elaborate debate among the founding fathers of India’s constitution. The members of the constituent assembly adopted the constitution with the conviction that it best suited to the heterogeneous character of Indian society, while the world expressed scepticism about India’s ability to operate a democratic system successfully 1.

Parliament has three important functions-to make laws, to be a forum for deliberations on important issues of governance and to enforce accountability of the executive to the people. Constitutional authorities such as Sir William Black Stone consider the law-making powers of the Parliament as the true index of Parliamentary sovereignty. Further, he says that the Parliament has “Sovereign and uncontrollable authority in making, confirming, enlarging, restraining, abrogating, repealing, reviving, and expounding of laws, concerning matters of all possible denominations, ecclesiastical, or temporal, civil, military, maritime, or criminal”2.

Indian Parliament, in the early years, discharged its function of charting out the path of social engineering with the utmost sense of responsibility, in the process of earning the admiration and respect of the people3. Healthy Debate, discussions, more number of sittings, spending more time for legislative business are considered as key features of Parliamentary democracy is now being overshadowed by uproar, chaos, conflicts and forced adjournments even for unimportant reasons and issues. Further, in the history of the Indian Parliament that a Parliament session was abandoned, the monsoon session of the Parliament in 2008, or frozen for reasons that are unclear.

Many MPs don’t attend the house for days together; the clever ones sign the attendance registered and slip out, ensuring that they don’t miss out on their daily allowance even if they miss crucial debates. Many others feel the ***** of consciousness and turn up in the house and do nothing: In the present 14th Lok Sabha 32 MPs are still observing a vow of silence, waiting to participate in their maiden debate; 37 MPs are yet to table a question. Many more take their seats in the august house just to add to the decibel levels without contributing in any way to debates or discussions. There was general opinion that government, opposition and other political parties are not giving due importance to Parliament.

There has been a trend of decline in terms of the number and duration of sittings of Parliament after the period of the first Lok Sabha during 1952-1957. This trend of deterioration has been not only in terms of sittings or ‘hours of labour’ but also the quality and length of the debates and the legislative outcomes. There were 677 sittings (3,784 hours) during the first Lok Sabha (1952-57). This is the highest recorded count of the number of sittings of the House of the People. The Rajya Sabha, meanwhile, had 565 sittings during 1952-57. During the period 1971-1977 (when Parliament had its tenure extended by a year), the Lok Sabha had 613 sittings (4,071 hours).

This, however, cannot be considered to have been a positive trend, as it included the period of the Emergency. The average number of sittings of the Lok Sabha during 1952-1957 was 135 days a year. In 1956, the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha sat for 151 and 113 days respectively. This is the highest number of sittings of Parliament till today. In 2006, Parliament sat for 77 days. In 2007, however, this declined in the Lok Sabha to 66 days, marking the lowest number of days in the last few years with the exception of 2004, which was an election year.

In 2008 Parliament sat for only 46 days. This trend is disheartening, and will inevitably erode public trust over the institution. There is a long-pending proposal that the minimum number of days of sitting for the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha be fixed as 120 and 100 respectively, so as to ensure that Parliament is able to transact its business and carry forward its responsibilities in an optimal manner3.

The recently concluded second part of the 14th session of the 14th Lok Sabha witnessed a loss of nearly 21 hours in interruptions and adjournments. But Parliament adopted a resolution unanimously condemning the heinous attack in Mumbai by terrorists4. It is significant to note that during this session total of eight bills were passed in Lok Sabha in just over 15 minutes. These included five bills in the revised list of business and four under the supplementary agenda circulated later5. Some of the bills rejected by the Standing Committee were also passed in the Parliament. Similarly Rajya Sabha had also passed 3 bills in about 20 minutes, without any proper discussions in the Parliament. Lok Sabha had no time to discuss the bills because it met 46 days only, the lowest in the history of the Parliamentary democracy and a far cry from the norm of having atleast 100 sittings6.

The quality of debate is linked to the quality of MPs, says constitution expert Subash Kashyap. In the first Lok Sabha, lawyers and barristers formed the largest professional group members, this automatically ensured speakers of a certain quality such as Jawaharlal Nehru and N C Chatterjee (father of present Lok Sabha speaker Somnath Chatterjee) to name a couple. In one such debate, he recalls, there was much hair-splitting over which word-incite or provoke-should be used for a particular legislation.

In the 1950s, even bitterly contested issues never degenerated into abuse leading to chaos. MPs saw one another as political rivals, not enemies. In those days several lesser-known MPs specialized in a particular topic and were heard with seriousness. For instance, Uma Charan Pattnaik, an independent MP from Orissa’s Ganjam constituency in the first two Lok Sabha elections, “He was an expert on defence matters. When he spoke there was pin-drop silence,”.

Experts say the quality of debate declined after the third Lok Sabha. The process of democratization has created a new crop of leaders whose intellectual and political capabilities are below par. “They prefer to shout than debate”, as pointed out by political scientist Imtiaz Ahmed. Besides, as a 2004 study by Bangalore-based independent watchdog Public Affairs Centre show, 23.2% of those elected to Parliament face criminal charges ranging from murder to extortion and ****. Such MPs are unlikely to be good debaters7.

It is worthwhile to note that, according to India Today report8, published recently, some 32 MPs, so far, never participated in any debate in the Parliament, which includes senior most members also. While debating the issues such as poverty and hunger in Parliament, especially the House of People, the attendance was very low. On May 5, 2007 only six members were present, initially, in the House of People, which discussed the eradication of hunger in India. The attendance was less than one per cent. Later six more members joined in the discussion. Totally 12 members attended the discussion, of which 7 belongs to Congress, 2 from Left parties, and one each from BJP, BJDand TDP12. Similarly, in the month of December 2007 the on going National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme was discussed in the Lok Sabha, and this time the attendance was 16 only. Because of lack of quorum the speaker adjourned the house.

It is significant as well as worthwhile to mention here that, in the 2007 Global Hunger Index (GHI) out of 118 countries list, India placed in a dismantle position of 94th rank- behind Ethiopia. Ethiopia worked better at reducing hunger than India did. Pakistan ranks ahead of India, too, at 88. China logs in at 47. All our South Asian neighbours do better than India on this index, except Bangladesh. None of these countries boasts an economy growing at 9 per cent a year. When the sensex fall of several hundred points the Finance Minister comes forward and soothes the market nerves. But no one, the representatives, came forward or reacted to calm the nation when India hit the 94th rank in the GHI9.

Everybody accepted the fact that the Parliament has not been functioning up to the expectations of the people and the people have also gradually loosing their faith over the system as well as Parliamentary democracy. The following are some of the facts about how the Parliament worked in the last year, 2008:

1. Union government spent Rs.440 Cr. for conducting business of the Parliament.

2. Rs.23,083 being spent for conducting one minute of the business of the Parliament.

3. Parliament met only 46 days in the year 2008, which is lowest in the history of the Parliamentary democracy .

4. Speaker and Prime Minister speech were also disturbed.

5. Speaker left Lok Sabha in a huff because of unable to maintain the order of the house.

6. Prime Minister was not allowed to introduce his Council of Ministers.

7. 32 MPs, so far, never raised any issues or participated in any debate in the Parliament.

8. 37 MPs never submitted any kind of questions, in Question Hour or Zero Hour, in the Parliament.

9. Lok Sabha passed, in December 2008, 8 bills in 17 minutes without any proper debate.

10. Rajya Sabha had also passed 3 bills in 20 minutes.

11. Bill rejected by the Standing Committee of the Parliament was also passed.

Quality of debate and discussions are the hall mark of Parliamentary Democracy seems to be unavailable at present. Everyone agrees there’s a need for more informed debate in Parliament. Imtiaz Ahmad suggested that rookie MPs should schooled in the art of parliamentary affairs. A short course can help10. Strict enforcement of Code of Conduct for MPs, electing representatives with some professional background or formal education, are essential for proper working of Parliament in India. More than any measures sense of commitments from: i) people representatives, ii) leaders of all the political parties will make the Parliament to work more meaningfully and purposefully.

Reference:

1. Somnath Chatterjee, “Six Decades of Parliamentary Democracy”, The Hindu, August 15, 2007.p.4.

2. P.C.Alexander, “Raising a Question on Question Hour”, Deccan Chronical, May 20, 2008.p.6.

3. India Today, Jan. 19, 2009.p.65; Vinod Bhanu, “Abandoning a Parliament Session”, The Hindu, Sep.13, 2008.p.12.

4. The Hindu, Dec. 24, 2008.p.12.

5. The Hindu, Dec. 24, 2008.p.13.

6. Times of India, Dec. 28, 2008.p.8.

7. Avijit Ghosh, “Where’s the debate in this din of democracy?”, Times of India, Dec. 28, 2008.p.8.

8. India Today, Jan.21, 2009.p.18.

9. P.Sakthivel, “Indian Parliamentary Democracy in Turmoil”, The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol.LXIX, No.3. July-Sep. 2008.pp.519-529.

10. Times of India, Dec. 28, 2008.p.8.

Garry Gamber asked:


The filibuster as a political delaying tactic has been a part of the American political process since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Though it was not used in the early years of the nation, the filibuster has been used hundreds of times since the 1840’s. Here are a few of the famous filibusters from our political history.

The U.S. Constitution does not limit the length or nature of debate on the floors of the Senate or the House of Representatives. The House has since adopted rules which limit the length of debate since the House has a very large number of Representatives. But the smaller Senate has always upheld the right of a recognized Senator to debate an issue for as long as he or she wishes to hold the floor. Senate Rule 19 and Rule 22, the cloture rule adopted in 1917, create some guidelines for conducting a debate and for closing the debate when it becomes lengthy.

Senator Henry Clay

In 1841 Senator Henry Clay proposed a bank bill that was opposed by Senator John C. Calhoun who began a lengthy, seemingly unending, rebuttal. Calhoun basically created the modern filibuster. Clay threatened to change the Senate rules in order to close debate on the issue. Clay’s colleague, Thomas Hart Benton, rebuked Clay and accused him of trying to stifle the Senate’s right to unlimited debate.

Through the next few turbulent decades and into the 1960’s the filibuster was used often by Southern Democrats to block civil rights legislation. The filibuster had been seen by the minority party as a tool to combat the potential “tyranny of the majority,” but the frequent usage of the filibuster by the Southern Democrats became characterized as the “tyranny of the minority.”

Senate Rule 22

President Woodrow Wilson suggested that some limits be placed on the unlimited debate concept. In 1917 the Senate adopted Senate Rule 22, now known as the “cloture” rule. The new Rule 22 provided the mechanism to close out debate on a legislative bill and bring the bill up for a vote if cloture was approved by 67% of the Senate. The 67% requirement remained in effect until 1975 when Rule 22 was amended to allow a 60% agreement to invoke cloture.

Cloture Rule 22 was tested in 1919 when the Senate was asked to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I. The treaty was debated and filibustered, but a 67% majority voted to end the filibuster and to bring the treaty to a vote.

Senator Huey Long

Senator Huey Long, the fiery and colorful senator from Louisiana, made the filibuster famous between 1932 and 1935 when he utilized it several times to stall legislation that he considered unfair to the poor. Long frustrated his opponents and entertained the Senate gallery by reading Shakespeare, reciting shrimp and oyster recipes and talking about “pot-likkers.” An amendment to Senate Rule 19 later required that debate on legislation be germane to the issue being debated.

On June 12, 1935, Senator Long engaged in his most famous filibuster. A bill was before the Senate to eliminate the provision for the Senate to confirm senior National Recovery Act employees. Senator Long opposed the bill because he didn’t want his political adversaries in Louisiana to obtain lucrative N.R.A. jobs. Senator Long spoke for 15 hours and 30 minutes running well into the evening and early morning hours with senators dozing at their desks. Long read and analyzed each section of the Constitution, a document which he claimed had become “ancient and forgotten lore” under President Roosevelt’s New Deal.

After the reading of the Constitution Senator Long offered to give advice to the remaining senators on any subject of their choosing. No senator took Long up on his offer but the gallery patrons began sending notes to the floor for Senator Long to extemporize on. That kept Long going into the early hours of the morning. At 4 a.m. Long yielded the floor in order to use the restroom and his proposal was defeated.

James Stewart brought more fame to the filibuster when he played the role of Senator Jefferson Smith in the 1939 film, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” Stewart’s character launched into a filibuster in response to an attempt to ridicule him.

Senator Wayne Morse

Senator Wayne Morse from Oregon was called “The Tiger of the Senate” and served in the Senate under 5 Presidents. In 1952 Senator Morse left the Republican Party, claiming independent status, when he objected to sections of the party platform and Dwight Eisenhower’s choice of Richard Nixon as his vice presidential running mate. Senator Morse claimed that the Republican Party had left him.

On April 24, 1953, Senator Morse began to filibuster against Tidelands Oil legislation. He kept the floor for 22 hours and 26 minutes, breaking the filibuster record of 18 hours held by his mentor, Wisconsin Senator Robert La Follette.

Senator Morse is remembered through numerous colorful stories. For example, Clare Booth Luce, former U.S. Senator and Ambassador to Italy had to resign her appointment when she made the insulting but funny remark that her problems with Senator Morse began when he was kicked in the head by a horse.

Senator Strom Thurmond

About 9 p.m. on August 28, 1957, Senator Strom Thurmond rose before the Senate and announced, “Mr. President, I rise to speak against the so-called voting rights bill, H.R. 6127.” His own staff had not been informed about Senator Thurmond’s intentions to filibuster the bill, but they knew something was up when they saw Thurmond gathering considerable reading material.

Senator Thurmond had prepared himself for a long filibuster on the Senate floor. Earlier in the day he had spent time in the Senate steam room, dehydrating himself so that he would absorb all the water he drank without having to visit the restroom. His wife packed a steak sandwich lunch for him and she stayed in the family gallery throughout the night. Thurmond brought a quantity of malted milk tablets and throat lozenges from his office.

Senator Thurmond began his filibuster by reading each state’s election statutes. He later read and discussed an opinion by Chief Justice Taft. He also read and discussed the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and Washington’s Farewell Address. His staff, concerned for Senator Thurmond’s health, was finally successful in getting him to leave the floor.

After 24 hours and 18 minutes, a record that still stands, Senator Thurmond concluded his remarks with, “I expect to vote against the bill.” The bill was defeated.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

On June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia finished his address begun on the previous day, slightly more than 14 hours earlier. He filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an act which was debated by Byrd and others for 57 working days, including 6 Saturdays.

Senate President Hubert Humphrey from Minnesota needed 67 votes to be able to carry the motion for cloture. Minority Leader Senator Everett Dirksen, the always eloquent senator from Illinois procured the Republican votes necessary to pass the cloture motion. “Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come,” he said. “The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!”

The final roll call vote on cloture resulted in 71 votes in favor and 29 votes opposed. It was the first time in history that cloture had been invoked on civil rights legislation. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was the most sweeping of its kind in our history.

Justice Abe Fortas

In June of 1968 Chief Justice Earl Warren notified President Lyndon Johnson that he would be retiring from the Supreme Court. This move gave President Johnson time to nominate a successor since he was not planning to seek re-election as President. Johnson nominated Associate Justice Abe Fortas to replace Warren. At the same time Johnson nominated Texas Appeals Court Justice Homer Thornberry to replace Fortas, a move that was designed to satisfy southern senators.

President Johnson counted on Senators Everett Dirksen and Richard Russell for their support of the nomination. When Abe Fortas testified at his own confirmation hearing, an unprecedented occurrence, it was revealed that Fortas worked uncomfortably closely with the White House staff and the President. Later it was learned that Fortas was being paid a large sum, privately, to teach an American University summer course. At this point Dirksen, Russell, and other senators withdrew their support.

Though the committee recommended confirmation of Justice Abe Fortas, a filibuster ensued on the Senate floor to block his confirmation, the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination. On October 1, 1968, the Senate was unable to tally the 67 votes needed to invoke cloture and President Johnson withdrew the nomination.

The use of the filibuster has increased from 16 filibusters in the 19th century to 66 in the first half of the 20th century to 195 in the period from 1970 to 1995. It is likely that the filibuster will continue to play an important role in the American political process.

Carol Forsloff asked:


 

Whatever people say about Joe Biden’s gaffes, no one would accuse him of not being intelligent and articulate. We all know he can be wordy, perhaps, but not one who doesn’t have a lot of governmental experience that gives him a broad perspective on the national level.

Biden was laid back for awhile. We didn’t see him much on the national news except for the debate. But given the outspoken nature, and the type of speech of his Vice Presidential rival, Joe Biden has picked up pace and is beginning to take on the opposition with the type of passion and flair for which he has become known to many.

At a time of great controversy, Joe Biden may well be the one who indeed helps us make the final decision. He hasn’t gotten into the mud with the others and has a record that may upset some conservatives, but even those people know Biden to be someone who knows his material. If these same people were to be asked to choose between Biden’s knowledge on the economy and that of Sarah Palin, most of them would choose Biden as well.

We should focus attention on Joe Biden these days for lots of reasons. First of all, he has the background that we just discussed. Second both John McCain and Barack Obama have more than the ordinary amount of physical risks. McCain has had cancer four times; Barack Obama, as a black man, has had his life threatened publicly with one plan intercepted before the Convention. So the position of Vice President is more critical now than almost any other time except during the wars fought by the United States.

Here’s a snapshot of Joe Biden’s experience. Biden was born in  Scranton, Pennsylvania where he lived before becoming involved in politics. He received his law degree in 1969, then became a city councilman the following year. He became an attorney in 1969 and was elected to serve on the city council in 1970. Biden became one of the youngest senators ever elected when he first became Senator in 1972 and has been re-elected by comfortable margins to serve as one of those with a term that has been one of the longest terms in the Senate of anyone presently in Congress.

Biden presently chairs the Foreign Relations Committee. This certainly gives him the foreign relations experience the country needs now. He has helped resolve conflicts around the world, especially the war with Bosnia. Although Biden voted in favor of the original Iraq War Resolution in the Congress, when he recognized that he, along with other Senators had the wrong facts presented to them, proposed resolutions in order that the US take a different course in the region of the Middle East.

Joe Biden’s knowledge extends beyond foreign relations experience. He has served as chairman of the  Senate Judiciary Committee where he has dealt with drug problems, crime, and violence against women issues.  He also served as chair of the Judiciary Committee during the contentious hearings of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas.  Biden chaired the Judiciary Committee during the contentious hearings. That allows him to manage controversy and get people talking about important issues. He knows qualifications, how to understand the needs of people in social situations and has a record of advocacy.

Most of the talk on the Internet seems to come from those who question whether Joe Biden is either liberal or conservative enough and whether his gaffes get him into trouble. That might be a good thing, given the extremes of left and right. Perhaps that’s because Biden may not the glamorous creature that we cling to these days, but his steady hand on the till that McCain referred to in the town hall meeting with Barack Obama might be what we need in a crisis. These are the days when potential crisis can occur. So he deserves our serious examination.

Elizabeth O’Reilly asked:

President Obama jumped right into the news conference tonight, immediately focused on health care, and keeping the reform proposal debate the main subject.  In fact, only two questions, which were followed by brief answers, covered other topics.

The president explained some of this preoccupation, as well as his rush to push the reform through, by explaining that “it’s not about” him, but about the American people; the bushels of mail he receives everyday by American families “clobbered” by costs and their hardships; the fact that “if you don’t set deadlines in this town, things don’t happen”; and the fact that he feels it is being made out to be a game by many, while indeed, “this is not a game to the American people”.

It’s true.  In an AP story, a group of Republicans were overheard by reporters, in which one of them was heard making comments along the lines that if they beat this bill, it will “break” Obama, make him weaker, give way to some slippage in his approval ratings.  As if this bill were to be used as leverage to gain political advantage.  More and more, on both sides of party lines, we are seeing officials, those whom we elect to be our leaders, concerning themselves more over power, politics, and trying to rule, than over American interests.

According to the President, two thirds of the costs of the reform will be paid for by “redesigning” the current health care structure, by reducing administrative costs, utilizing technology systems, and taking out profit motives for insurance companies who are seeing record breaking profits while steadily raising premiums.  The other third, he suggests, should be paid for by “reducing itemized deductions for the wealthiest Americans, giving them the same deductions as everybody else.”  To me, this is fair: one hundred percent of my family’s income is taxed; the first ten percent of many millionare’s incomes are taxed.  Why is this?

Obama insists this will not add to the deficit.  In fact, he claims that he won’t sign a bill that would add to the deficit, and named some of the work his administration has been doing to reduce the current deficit by $2.2 trillion over ten years, and are constantly working to eliminate waste and lower it further.   However, as he pointed out, after numerous bailouts, recovery packages, stimulus packages, now a health care program, the government keeps on spending.  He noted that Americans are “understandably queasy” about this, because while we people keep sacrificing and keep needing to cut our own costs and reduce our own budgets, it doesn’t seem that the government is doing with the same, with OUR tax dollars.  I appriciate that this was acknowledged, but I must say, we’ve all heard it before, for years, that the government will start spending out money a lot wiser and eliminate the waste; and so far, reducing spending and funding seems to be hitting places locally the hardest.  I’d like to see the deficit reduced without cutting off funding for states.

When asked about cuts to medicare, Obama explained the Republican proposed Med Pack program, which supposedly takes the politics out of medicare, will not cut benefits, and “fills half of the donut hole” in benefits, the area in which seniors coverage temporarily runs out, and they have to pay a certain amount out of pocket before their benefits resume.  He made the points that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages, and the biggest force behind the current national deficit is the skyrocketing costs of health care.  He claims to want a plan that will provide more security, ensuring people will be able to keep coverage if they lose or change their jobs, that will not add to the deficit, and that will keep the government out of health care decisions.  He promises that he will not sign a bill that will be paid for “on the backs of middle class Americans”, and that does not slow the rising costs of health care.

Obama is a very talented speaker.  I believe this may have been a driving factor as to how he got elected, with his ideal plans and the presentation of them.  At the risk of getting too personal, I voted for him, and that’s not a decision I regret.

However, this health care reform, at least when it’s coming out of his mouth, sounds too good to be true, and I’m going to have to pull the pleaser card.  A president telling a people what they want to hear.  It’s an experiment, and it could prove to be a dangerous one.  For example, the President claims that by making health care more efficient and redesigning its current structure, as I pointed out earlier, will cover two thirds of the outrageous price tag.  I’m no financial expert, by in my opinion, that’s an exaggeration, and a guess at best.  Let’s say that “redesigning” only covers a third of the cost, or even less.  Then how will we go about making up the difference?  Has anyone even thought of a provision that would make up this kind of loss?

My main issues with the plan, from the start, were the costs, and the rush to get it through.  To Obama’s credit, he IS loosening up on that a bit; during the conference tonight, instead of promising they will accomplish this by the August recess, he promised it will be done “this year”.  Maybe still a push, but it sounds a lot better than one month.  For the last week, Obama has been making at least one speech per day, pushing the reform bill.  I understand that this has been one of his main goals since his campaigne, and that he was voted into a very high pressure and problematic presidency.  Yet, congress needs to be able to do their job.  This is what they are here for, in a delicate system of checks and balances.  The process can be called drawn out and inefficient, but it IS functional.  While there may indeed be a need to set deadlines in that “town” to get things done, they  must be reasonable in order to serve that function.  You can’t just trump their purpose.

And I was not very pleased that none of the press present questioned the president on the television ads.  What an absurd way to gain support for your agenda.

Thanks to everyone who watched the conference tonight and gained information from it, and don’t forget to contact your congress people with your thoughts on the health care reform!

J.J. Jackson asked:

Liberals are gushing over, and President Obama is praising endlessly, Sonia Sotomayor. Repeatedly we are being barraged by the left with the personal story of one who could possibly be the first Hispanic woman on the Supreme Court. While such tales are always compelling, what is rather annoying is how any time you want to move beyond that superficial and sugary coating to examine her record the left quickly jumps right back to it. In an attempt to keep your attention away from a debate about who should be sitting on the highest court in the nation, people who do not want to examine anything of substance shout, “Look! Up In the sky!” Then they regale you with tales about how Sotomayor can stop a speeding bullet and leap tall buildings in a single bound.

President Obama claims that Sotomayor is smart. He even claims that she believes in the Constitution. But when one stops following his pointed finger into the sky where his nominee supposedly soars, we see that there is a plethora of evidence on the ground that contradicts the rhetoric. And for Sotomayor, that evidence littering the ground is damning and destroys any credibility those that call her smart and a defender of the Constitution may have.

There is one case in particular that sums this point up so succinctly and makes it impossible to ignore that Sonia Sotomayor is neither smart nor a believer in our Constitution. That case is Maloney vs. Cuomo in which Sotomayor signed onto an opinion that flies so far in the face of the facts that she should not be elected bubblegum sidewalk scraper much less nominated to the Supreme Court.

The case involved one James Maloney who was trying to assert his second amendment right to keep and bear arms but had been arrested for carrying a pair of nunchucks. The opinion with which Sotomayor agreed stated that the arrest was warranted because, now get this, the second amendment, “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government and not upon that of the state.”

Sotomayor did in this decision what liberals always do. She looked for something that she might be able to use to support her opinion and disregarded anything that actually contradicted it. Things like, oh I don’t know, say the 14th Amendment? You know that one don’t you? It says that, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” which makes it clear that the states must, absolutely must, protect the same rights as the Constitution itself protects.

Sotomayor’s opinion does lead to some interesting potential conundrums however. If the second amendment only applies to the federal government as she suggests then what about other rights retained by the people and specifically called out in our Constitution?

Can the states now infringe upon my freedom of religion? How about my freedom of speech? What about my right to petition from redress? After all, unlike the second amendment, the first amendment specifically states that it is Congress that shall make no law regarding such.

Can the states now decide that they do not need a warrant to search my home even though the Constitution forbids such actions? Or can the states now decide to deprive me of a right to due process and a right to jury trial? What about these Constitutional protections written in a similar manner to the second amendment that Sonia Sotomayor believes stops at federal authority only?

Can I now be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment at the whim of the state? Can blacks now be placed back in shackles and shipped off to the plantations again simply for being black? After all, if what is written in the federal constitution only applies to the federal government what is to stop the states from doing any of these things?

Is my right to assemble in jeopardy now because my state legislature might decide that such is not a good idea? Can the state now quarter soldiers in my home without my permission? Can my papers and effects now be seized on the whim of the state alone?

Where does the lunacy of this opinion which Sotomayor agreed with end?

Of course the 14th Amendment renders all of these questions of mine moot. But Sotomayor either never read far enough into the Constitution to find it or is so wedded to ideology that she chose to ignore it. Can we afford to place someone who is obviously a wifty illiterate or dangerous ignoramus at best and a treacherous anti-American radical at worst to a court where such opinions of hers would become the norm and perhaps even the law? Will Americans stop looking to the sky for a super woman that does not exist long enough to ask serious questions and soundly reject her?

Stephanie Vance asked:

Long time readers of the tipsheet know that the guru and her husband often go to the New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival. If you aren’t sure what that is, check out www.nojazzfest.com. If you want to know what others are doing in New Orleans check out the webcam at Tropical Isle on Bourbon Street anytime after 6:00pm or so…

As usual, in the midst of three days of fun, frivolity and fantabulous jazz I, of course, got to thinking about advocacy. I mean, wouldn’t you? And this wasn’t just in a daiquiri-induced haze while wandering around the French Quarter. No, in fact, I was struck by the similarities between Jazz Fest and every advocacy campaign with which I’ve been ever been affiliated.

Following are five techniques you should use to get you through any advocacy campaign – or music festival for that matter.

Strategize: One does not just walk into Jazz Fest and wander around. With eleven stages offering up multiple acts, only careful planning will ensure that you’ll catch what interests you most. At Jazz Fest, this tactic applies doubly to your food options. Before the festival, my husband and I looked over the musical acts and decided what we wanted to see in about ½ hour. We spent another 3 hours drooling over the food. Jambalaya. Bread Pudding. Po Boys. Muffalettas. See, no one can eat everything. But you can eat some of everything with a good plan – and stretchy pants.

The same applies to your advocacy efforts (the strategizing, not the stretchy pants). Think of your strategy development in four stages: First, you want to outline your specific goal – usually in terms of dollars or policy outcomes. Then you want to look at the variety of ways to reach that goal. For appropriations, for example, this might include earmarks, additional line item funds or even report language directing the agency to spend more. Third, consider the competition, distractions and road blocks standing in your way, such as other worthy programs in need of funding (yes, there are a few). Finally, in light of all this information, identify your preferred path. We navigated through Jazz Fest using this four step process – I know it will work for advocacy.

Develop Themes: Themes help you develop a strategy and stick with it — even in the face of temptation. Saturday, for example, was “fried things” day in the food court. Sure, I was tempted by the chocolate dipped strawberries and the Veggie Mufaletta. But I had made a commitment to “fried things.” I wasn’t going to let “fried things” down. I stayed focused and the fried green tomatoes and fried eggplant did not disappoint. Then on Sunday I shifted my theme to “things with cheese,” thus reveling in many other delights at the festival.

Advocacy efforts can be as distracting as the Jazz Fest food courts. One moment Congress is happily focused on transportation issues – two seconds later they’re debating the War in Iraq and then the Farm Bill. It can be difficult to stay focused on your issue when 25 different and equally compelling issues are being waived in your face. Don’t be tempted! Find a theme and stick to it through thick and thin.

Improvise: On the flip side, all the strategizing and thematic development in the world won’t help you when all your best laid plans go awry. Maybe that fabulous act (or fabulous Congressman) that you were looking forward to turns out to be not that fabulous after all. Disappointed, for example, in one of the acts I went to see, I stopped by another tent and danced, bopped and shouted my way through a phenomenal show from a blues / soul / jazz artist named Ruthie Foster (really, go look her up). I had never heard of her before and would never have found her if I hadn’t improvised.

Every once in a while circumstances might dictate that you abandon all your strategies and themes and just make stuff up as you go along. Don’t like that member of Congress? Go see if you can find a new one. Aren’t pleased with how the legislation is progressing? Find new and creative ways to change it in to something you can support.

Build Coalitions: On Saturday I parked myself in front of one of the three main outdoor stages and waited for one of the acts I REALLY wanted to see later in the day – Santana. I quickly became dependent on the kindness of strangers – as they became dependent on me. See, when you’re smack dab in the middle of a throng of 10,000 people, it’s hard to get out. So we built alliances and assigned jobs. Some people had the job of foraging for beer. Some went for food. Others shared umbrellas (as shields from the sun). My job was to help coalition members map out the shortest route from our fiefdom to the outside world. Without their help, I’m not sure I could have survived 8 long hours in the 90 degree heat.

Effective advocacy campaigns rely on coalitions as well. Maybe your partners aren’t helping you get beer – but in a winning coalition everyone performs specific tasks that keep the group moving toward the mission.

And, of course, there’s persistence. Votes won’t always go your way. Legislation won’t always be introduced in a timely fashion. The food court might even run out of Spinach Artichoke casserole (hey, it happened). But every year it gets a little easier and you learn a little more. You learn to bring your mud boots with you in case it rains. You learn to buy your sweet potato pies from Mr. Williams’ pie stand on Friday because he attends church on Saturday and will not be selling pies. You learn to stuff yourself with spinach artichoke casserole as soon as you get to the festival. Armed with this information (and enough beer, sunscreen and advocate motivation) you will be able to persevere until the fat lady (or Santana) sings.