Quote of the Day
Small opportunities are often the beginning of great enterprises.
Demosthenes
Citizens, Persons, and the Constitution
Question: do what extent are US visitors (lawful or not) granted our basic Bill of Rights? There are a few nuances, but basically citizens, except in certain circumstances (e.g., felony convictions) have the right to vote and hold office (or what the Constitution prescribes in terms of distinctive citizen privileges or immunities), but the preponderance of rights apply to all persons (including citizens and aliens). This is made clear by the Fourteen Amendment:
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.
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" refers to some official (e.g., intelligence and/or diplomatic) capacity of the said person on behalf of a foreign state. Other individuals (aliens to the point of naturalization) are subject to American laws and can and will be prosecuted for relevant crimes, but are entitled to the same rights and due process, their day in court. The Fourteen Amendment is quite clear: it doesn't say "...any State deprive any US citizen...nor deny any US citizen..." "All persons born or naturalized" is a subset of "all persons".
There have been counterproductive attempts by states such as Arizona in essence to take the initiative of federal government Constitutional, preemptive responsibility in enforcing our nation's immigration and foreign visitor policies. Take 5 bills in Arizona that were rightly voted down, involving a challenge to birthright citizenship, hospitals and schools checking legal status, and an immigration omnibus bill (involving checking legal status for schools and universities and driving privileges). To what extent aliens are subject to taxes as residents, they should be eligible for relevant benefits on a fair (equal protection) basis. I am sympathetic to the idea that if a class of unauthorized aliens represents an undue net cost to the taxpayer, the US government should compensate local and state governments for the burden it's liable for in response to not adequately enforcing federal policies (unless local communities themselves fail to cooperate with federal immigration policies).
This has become a more recent issue as the Justice Department made it clear that they intend to enforce the 1982 Plyler v Doe decision, which basically argued that Texas state or local school districts could not discourage access to basic public education for unauthorized aliens. I happen to agree with the minority opinion (i.e., the decision was wrongly decided) but it has more to do with judicial intrusions into the legislative branch. For regular readers of this blog, I've frequently referenced things like negative and positive rights. In essence, most of our basic (negative) rights restricting things that the government or others can do to infringe on our unalienable rights (life, liberty, or property) without due process of law. There are other things that the government has to do for us: for example, how can we be guaranteed a fair trial if we can't afford a lawyer? The majority in this case argued that it really wasn't good public policy (e.g., if we don't educate unauthorized alien children, they could engage in unlawful activities). The minority agreed "it wouldn't be prudent" (to quote GHW Bush) public policy to encourage juvenile delinquency, but it is up to legislature to remedy social problems, not the courts: know your role, as it were. Most of these positive rights are reflected in liberal/progressive legislation.
Short of anything reflecting citizen privileges and immunities, I think the state and local governments should be limited to uniformly administered criteria, such as residency within a district. If the federal government decides to require additional information relevant, say, to its tax and spending authority, e.g., form I-9 for employment, for relevant reimbursements (say, to health providers), the federal government has that right. But I don't think local and state governments can intrude on rights and responsibilities defined in the Constitution as belonging exclusively to the federal government, and I see all of these measures as unconstitutional. Reform is necessary, but at the federal level, not the state and local level.
Obama on Domestic Oil Exploration: Too Little, Too Late
Obama, under pressure because of sticky high gasoline prices, is finally paying lip service--like he also did in 2008--to the problem (but in general terms, which has been part of his pattern for token actions, e.g., not opening any new areas off the Pacific Coast or upper Atlantic Coast, declaring 100 or more miles off the coast off-limits, keeping the vast majority of shale properties not in North Dakota or Texas undeveloped, etc.) He continues to make the same old same old disingenuous talking point that the oil companies don't need more leases because they aren't making good enough use of the leases they already have! (In fact, Shell management recently griped because the Obama Administration was still dragging its feet on approving relevant permits in Alaska.) In Saturday's Presidential sound bite, he makes vague references to new approvals in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. What's this, President Obama? We don't hear you make the same talking point about how many years it takes to go from a new lease into a citizen's gas tank? Maybe that's because you want political brownie points now which will have no immediate price relief? (Actually it could, depending on the nature and extent of new leases. Given Obama's history, though, we have come to expect just enough tracts to justify lip service--and those almost certainly won't have a material effect on future production and current prices.)
Political Potpourri
Paul Ryan (R-WI) is weighing a possible bid for the open Wisconsin US Senate seat to replacing Herb Kohl, the retiring newly senior US Senator. Herb Kohl has been around so long that I (working at UWM at the time) voted against him his first Senate campaign, having cut my ties with the Democratic Party over the previous year's mugging of Robert Bork. Kohl is an Obama-style politician (i.e., meaning he is seen as a congenial guy but his policy positions are purely toxic); RCP's Patrick McIlheran calls him "Sen. Beige". Even though Kohl won endorsements by various Democratic special interest groups (in fact, he has an even more progressive lifetime voting record than Feingold by ACU tallies, he rarely flaunted them in his campaigns, steering clear of red meat politics, the kind which finally led to Russ Feingold's undoing last fall; he preferred more low-key campaigns, serving 4-ounce cups of flavored milk. Democrats are trying to push Feingold to run again, but I don't think his chances have improved: what does he have to offer he didn't during his previous years in office? No, the Democrats would have more success running a less strident campaign.
Will Paul Ryan run? After I got swerved by the Huckabee non-candidacy announcement, I may have burned my pundit credentials. But no way. I don't see the Dems recapturing the House next year, and Paul Ryan, as Budget Committee chair, has probably the most influence of any Republican dealing with the budget and national debt, an issue over the coming decade at bare minimum. Why would he risk that to be a low-ranking junior Senator? I'm not sure why he says he'll think about it and make an announcement this week. My guess is that the party wants to pay due respect to Ryan, give him the right of first refusal. As this Senate election could flip the GOP into the majority, no doubt many see Ryan as a cinch to win Kohl's seat; I lived in Wisconsin enough to know that 2010 was the exception, not the rule, and the recent state Supreme Court reelection race should never have been as close as it was. We should know a lot better after the state senate recalls over the coming weeks involving 6 GOP and 3 Dem seats. Right now the GOP has a deep bench, including several legislators and current/prior state officeholders, including former governor and Bush HHS secretary Tommy Thompson.
No new RCP polls (Presidential approval or other polls) were reported Sunday. I'm particularly interested in seeing where the first post-Huckabee non-candidacy polls fall which we should see towards the latter half of the week. There has always been some tension between the Romney and Huckabee camps, but I suspect that you will see some support go to Romney simply on the electability argument. I'll guesstimate Romney gets a plurality of the Huck vote, say, a third, to maybe 25% or so overall. Gingrich will get a modest pickup to the mid-to-upper teens, and I speculate that the rest will go to undecided. I predicted yesterday that Mitch Daniels would enter the race (I think sooner rather than later, perhaps an announcement of an exploratory committee).
Tim Pawlenty also needs to step up his campaign: he has already been actively seeking out support in Iowa, but he needs to raise his profile and separate himself from the crowd. My suggestion for a no-brainer first step: win Mike Huckabee's endorsement as an unambiguous social conservative. He should also tout his middle-class roots, his local and state government experience, including legislative and state leadership, and his independently-appraised fiscal conservatism (i.e., Cato). One way to gain some buzz: create some gimmick, e.g., "This week's 'What Obama Should Cut--But Hasn't'".
Fukushima Nuclear Incident Update
Atomic Power Review notes:
- Sunday update: I haven't seen NEI or Hiroshima Syndrome blog posts this weekend over the recent TEPCO newly revised timetable and hypotheses regarding reactor 1 core. Will Davis makes reference to some computer modeling simulations of damage referencing core meltdowns under long-term power outage events. There is some discussion of the delayed introduction of borated (liquid control rod) water solution and as to whether the reintroduction of coolant exacerbated damage to the fuel rods. Details are still unclear as to the nature and extent of any leaks of the RPV, primary containment and/or piping.
In a separate post, I read that TEPCO is now expecting cold shutdown reactor 1 (and/or 2 and 3) could take up to 8 months.
A third Fukushima Daiichi worker has died for undetermined reasons. (There were two earlier fatalities related to the tsunami; the bodies were discovered in one of the reactor buildings.) The workers are fitted with dosimeters and their exposure routinely measured against safety heuristics, but there have been slips in Health Physics (such as lack of protective footwear on one occasion in standing contaminated water).
Political Humor
"A 20-something woman on a Delta flight yesterday stripped completely naked and ran up and down the aisle. That was in First Class. Economy Class had a fat guy in his tighty whities." - Jay Leno
[No doubt the passenger next to the young woman in first class managed to convince her that he was from the TSA, and he had just been told the government lost her full-body scan and needed replacement photos of her from all angles.]
"Bill Clinton says he now supports gay marriage. It's straight marriage he's not so excited about." - Craig Ferguson
[Well, a number of women had already started to question Bill Clinton's commitment to traditional marriage.]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Chicago, "Beginnings"
