Quote of the Day
Never seem more learned than the people you are with. Wear your learning like a pocket watch and keep it hidden. Do not pull it out to count the hours, but give the time when you are asked.
Lord Chesterfield
Jan Brewer (R-AZ) Vetoes Birther Ballot Qualification Law: Thumbs UP!
One of the themes I've been pressing is the formal definition of the rule of law: "The law must be prospective, well-known, and have characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty." We can talk about certain practical aspects of the rule of law, e.g., when former President Clinton obstructed justice in the Paula Jones case, essentially putting himself over the law (i.e., equality under law). In terms of the certainty of law, we might consider the wisdom of the "three-strikes" rule, where, for instance, a judge may have little discretion but to sentence the convicted defendant to life, even if the third offense was relatively minor.
The characteristic I want to discuss is generality. I'm thinking of the basic economy of a usable set of general-purpose laws, where citizens and businesses understand behavioral constraints and legal consequences of their actions. For instance, laws are not general if they are written in an attempt to single out specific entities or are so convoluted in nature relevant entities cannot reasonably understand a law's applicability or predict consequences of relevant behavior. An example is the recent health care reform where hundreds of companies or organizations have had to apply for exemptions. This brings into account the related concepts of equality and certainty: there appears to be an issue of administrative discretion as to whether existing health care plans qualify: the issue of discretion brings up the possibility of a double standard and/or crony capitalism.
A clear violation of the generality concept is the current state birther laws, motivated by the obsession of certain individuals with Barack Obama's birth certificate. As a libertarian conservative, I am instantly wary about infringements on individual rights (including the right to participate in public elections). I really think the prospective state laws are unconstitutional in the sense that federal elections are ultimately validated by Congress, as "the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members", and by its Constitutional certification of the winner of the Presidential election. Congress has, in fact, developed procedures for challenging an electoral vote, e.g., for a candidate whom has died and hence is ineligible.
But in any event, the above-cited Congressional Research Service makes it clear by historical context that any child of an American parent born outside of the United States is a "natural-born" American by birth (i.e., by statute).
The first Congress enacted a citizenship law which stated that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens". [Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat. 104.] This strongly suggests that the phrase was understood by the framers of the Constitution to refer to citizenship by birth.
I should note that some would quibble about some qualifying verbiage and that there were subsequent changes to the law, but that's missing the forest because of the trees: the issue is whether one has to have been physically born within one of the American states to qualify to become President, despite whatever additional stipulations (mostly to control for foreign intrigue). This makes the intent very clear.
Since Obama's mother was a US citizen, it doesn't matter if he was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or elsewhere. [I have a college-age nephew whom was born on July 4 at an American Air Force Base hospital in Germany; I routinely call him my "All-American" nephew.] There is some nitpicking about the shifting residency requirements of one or both parents over time. Residency periods are incidental to the concept of a parent's citizenship; saying, for instance, Obama would have been considered a natural-born citizen if his mother had been 20 at the time of his birth but not if she was 18 is patently arbitrary and a violation of equal protection. The salient factor is the citizenship of the mother, not her age.
Going back to the point: I think it's up to the political parties to vet and qualify their Presidential candidates, if for no other reason than to control for qualification challenges to election certification in the Congress. Certainly other candidates who think their opponents are not qualified for higher office have every opportunity to raise these issues with the voters.
The birther qualifications are unnecessary and politically motivated, clearly aimed at the incumbent President; it's unworthy of a state legislature. (That's bad enough without unconscionably tacking on the baptismal and circumcision certificates.) Laws are aimed at the common good and should be general in approach, with an abiding faith in the judgment and common sense of voters. There are legitimate reasons for people to vote against President Obama's reelection next year; if Obama is reelected next year, it'll be because conservatives have failed to nominate the right candidate: one whom can articulate a fair approach to reform and austerity, leaving a viable future for the coming generations and projecting an optimistic confidence and message which will appeal to the moderates and independents. No misplaced anger, no red meat politics or candidates (e.g., Palin or Trump), no election law or other gimmicks. We'll win the election because we offer legitimate solution and reforms (not partisan hype or smoke and mirrors), the better vision and administrative competence, because we have learned from the catastrophic mistakes of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama era and know that it is time for REAL change from business as usual in Washington DC. We need to reject the politics of pettiness, anger and fear and to embrace legal immigration and business growth.
Political Potpourri
I had not checked RealClearPolitics in a while; with Donald Trump sucking all the oxygen out of the room and Trump boasting an 11-point lead over Romney in one prominent horse race poll, I decided to check out some recent polls, and I have to say: Romney looks in very good shape. (Disclosure: I've narrowed my selection to Romney, Daniels and Pawlenty.)
Among other things, Romney is the only one to beat or run close to Obama in recent polls (and I don't think most Americans really know him that well, certainly not as well-known as Trump and Palin.) A Democratic pollster last Friday had Romney on top of Obama by 2%. In at least 3 other national polls over the past week or so, Romney trails Obama by only 4 to 5%. The only name Republican who runs competitive with Romney is Huckabee. All the other prospective candidates--most prominently, Trump, Gingrich, and Palin--are trailing by double-digits. All 3 of them have very high unfavorables with voters.
Two separate polls in Florida show Romney leading the pack over second-place Huckabee by 5 (Mason-Dixon) and by 19 (Suffolk). Romney remains a second to Huckabee in Iowa and is running strongly in New Hampshire (in fact, Obama only leads him by 1% there).
Does that mean Romney is a lock? No. But I don't think there's a conservative out there whom didn't realize, like I did, when the economic tsunami hit, Romney would have been a better candidate down the home stretch against Obama. I think that electability is the key to the 2012 election, and GOP voters realize that with $14T in national debt, the country cannot afford 4 more years of a spendthrift President playing games, vetoing any threat of budget cut. You need someone with proven problem-solving experience, with the ability to attract voters in blue and purple states. What about Huckabee? I think that Huckabee is strong in the southeast US, but with the exception of Iowa in a crowded field, I don't think he wins the voters whom went for McCain in 2008. Romney's biggest problem? I've thought it's the Massachusetts health care reform, which some have regarded as the precursor to ObamaCare. I don't see the issue affecting his favorable ratings in the GOP and I think he's doing a good job differentiating what was done in Massachusetts and the 2000-page federal law and its massive bureaucracy.
I'm not predicting Romney has the nomination. McCain's campaign imploded around his time 4 years ago, and he managed to scratch his way back from single-digit support. We saw what happened in last fall's Senate races in Colorado, Delaware, Nevada, and Alaska, and I think the Tea Party Express got the message. There's no way they want Obama reelected, and they know if Sarah Palin and Donald Trump are getting beaten by 15% or more with Obama's ratings in the lower 40's, there's very little upside to supporting these candidacies. There's no doubt Palin and Trump could be forces by their celebrity, and in a crowded race anything could happen. Romney could have an Ed Muskie or Howard Dean moment. But Romney is a very quick study, and there's no doubt in my mind Romney can clean Obama's clock in the Presidential debates.
On a separate note, I'm very impressed with Scott Brown's (R-MA) test matchups for reelection in 2012. We are still 18 months away, but he's proving that he's held majority voter support, 15 months after the honeymoon.
Fukushima Nuclear Incident Update
The situation continues to stabilize. The Hiroshima Syndrome blogger announced that (assuming no major changes) he will reduce his posts to 3 times weekly (every other weekday). NEI did not publish a daily update today.
IAEA notes:
- daily: Various coolant injections/sprays of the reactor pressurized vessels and spent fuel pool continue as needed. White smoke still being observed from reactor 2 through 4. Ambient radiation levels continue to decline, along with contaminants in seawater samples. Unmanned robots have been doing inspections of the reactor facilities. Anti-scattering agents were sprayed near the rad waste treatment area to lessen the risk of airborne radiation.
Atomic Power Review notes:
- Monday evening update: The reactor 2 turbine building basement contaminated waters are now being transferred to the rad waste facility. (Recall: this is the first step needed to make the building safe so electrical and other repairs can continue.)
- Japanese vs. US Media Contrast: Let's see the contrast between Japanese and US media in the discussion of the contaminated water transfer from the turbine building to the rad waste storage tank. (WARNING: Hiroshima Syndrome Alert! HINT: We owe a huge apology to Japan for the intentionally provocative, misleading, unprofessional US media.): NHK NEWS JAPAN: "TRANSFER BEGINS OF HIGHLY CONTAMINATED WATER." ASSOCIATED PRESS, USA: "NUKE PLANT STARTS PUMPING OUT RADIOACTIVE WATER."
Commercial of the Year
"An air traffic controller in Reno allegedly fell asleep while a medical flight carrying an ill passenger was trying to land. Ironically, the patient was suffering from insomnia. What are the odds?" - Jay Leno
[The FAA finally found a replacement candidate for an air traffic controller... The airlines even deliver, at no extra cost!]
"Federal agents uncovered yet another sleeper cell. Not terrorists — air traffic controllers." - Jay Leno
[You may also want to check the office of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget...]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ABBA, "Ring, Ring"
