His Name Is Earl

World Net Daily:

Students have their say about California homeschooling

Thousands of students from across the nation have weighed into the arguments over the recent court ruling in California that announced there was no legal provision to allowing homeschooling in the state.

“The court cannot ‘make’ something illegal – that’s the legislature’s job. Sheesh!” wrote Jon Chi Lou, of Heritage Christian High School. And Hye-Sung F. Gehring added, “This is ridiculous. California is retarded. Always has been.”

They shouldn’t, but they can.  Haven’t they heard of the Warren Court?  Sheesh!

Beyond that, these two students are demonstrating the effectiveness of homeschooling.  Out of the box, so to speak, they intimately know the difference between legislative and judicial power.  Too bad Earl Warren didn’t.

Daydream On

Does the fact that John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone to American parents not make him a “natural-born citizen,” as the Constitution requires Presidents to be?

Democrats and many anti-McCain Republicans will push the issue, but I highly doubt that the Federal courts would say no to the son of a four-star Navy Admiral and the grandson of a three-star Navy Admiral, if the matter gets that far.

I do find the irony delicious that the man who wants to grant citizenship to tens of millions of non-citizens might, in theory, not be a citizen enough himself to be President.

Trash Pants

Someone e-mailed me pointing to this site, called Trash Pants. Trash Pants are a series of pants that appear somewhat baggy, and appear to sag, but the appearance of exposed boxer shorts are built in, and actually part of the pants themselves. The person who e-mailed me was the founder of the company, who thanked me for what she thought was reasonable commentary on this blogmeister’s part about the political paranoia about sagging pants, though she and I have disagreements about a few things.

However, here’s an interesting dilemma. What if you buy a pair of Trash Pants, and you wear them in public within the city limits of, e.g. Delcambre, Louisiana? You will appear to be violating the town’s ordinance, and you will surely be detained by one of the city’s Finest, but because that which appears to be the boxer shorts are actually part of the pants, you’re literally not. Does the cop cite you, or not?

Candidates, Guns and Washington

Though this New York Post article about SCOTUS deciding to hear the D.C. Gun Ban case, and deciding on its constitutionality probably in May or June of next year, a Presidential campaign year no less, does not mention the Presidential campaign in its text, it does have a prominent photo of the anti-gun former mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani.

Since this decision is probably coming down next May or June, the two parties’ nominees will have been settled by then. If Giuliani does win the Republican nomination, increased interest in the issue by NRA members and other pro-2nd Amendment activists might mean that enough of them refuse to vote for him (or the Democrat) such that the Democrat slides into the White House by default. But if RG tries to pander, this only opens him up to Democratic accusations of flip-flopping, ruining his reputation among people not so interested in 2nd Amendment issues, which would mean the Democrat wins.

One interesting aspect raised by this article states that whatever the High Court’s decision, it might not impact the 2nd Amendment issue and legality anywhere else. The reason is that the issue is D.C.’s Gun Ban, and the District of Columbia is a creation of the Federal government and the U.S. Constitution itself, and any action of the home rule D.C. city government (including the gun ban) is an ex officio action of the U.S. Congress. New York and Chicago have gun bans, but those are ex officio actions of the states of New York and Illinois, respectively. And when you have state actions (or implied actions), the 10th Amendment comes into play.

We could have a situation where SCOTUS strikes down the D.C. Gun Ban, using the reasoning that the D.C. city government (an ex officio appendage of the U.S. Congress) violated the 2nd Amendment in enacting the legislation. If they do that, then this does not automatically mean that the New York and Chicago bans are unconstitutional, or does it mean that the same SCOTUS would strike them down. However, the “incorporation doctrine” that is an interpreted element of the 14th Amendment would mean that SCOTUS might, and New York and Chicago might repeal their bans to head off a legal fight.

No Sagging In New Jersey State Capital

Trenton, People’s Republic of New Jersey is the latest city considering an anti-sagging ordinance. Only this proposed law would have a twist, compared to other similar laws in other cities — along with a fine, you would be directed to a city worker who would assess your present life situation based on whether you have a job and/or a high school diploma.

In other words, if you’re unemployed and undereducated in Trenton, and you wear your pants at waist level, then you can just lump it. If you need help, pull down your pants, and wait for a cop to pass you by.

AP:

The bare-your-britches fashion is believed to have started in prisons, where inmates aren’t given belts with their baggy uniform pants to prevent hangings and beatings. By the late 80s, the trend had made it to gangster rap videos, then went on to skateboarders in the suburbs and high school hallways.

That’s one of two credible theories I have heard for the origin of sagging. The other, also involving prisons, is that men who were looking to be “done” (or were forced into such a situation) wore their prison garb low to advertise their availability.

Shop owner Mack Murray said Trenton’s proposed ordinance unfairly targets blacks.

“Are they going to go after construction workers and plumbers, because their pants sag, too?” Murray asked. “They’re stereotyping us.”

The American Civil Liberties Union agrees.

“In Atlanta, we see this as racial profiling,” said Benetta Standly, statewide organizer for the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia. “It’s going to target African-American male youths. There’s a fear with people associating the way you dress with crimes being committed.”

Now where would people get a silly idea like that? Actually, we all knew that the ACLU et al. would play the disparate racial impact card. I think they would do much better to use substantive due process, a purely Constitutional and civil liberties concern, to knock back these laws. It’s like anything else, would those who like to sag their britches all of a sudden become model citizens if they pulled them up?

Who knows? Maybe the real reason Trenton is doing is this that the Governor doesn’t like looking at droopy pants — if he sees them, he might run away, really really quickly.

Democrats Named Bill Fumble With the Constitution

And, in the case of the Bill named Richardson, fumbles with God Himself.

Sorry, B.R. Neither God nor the Constitution has anything to say about Iowa being the first Presidential preference voting in the country in a given Presidential election year. At that, the Constitution doesn’t mention anything about political parties. If God really cared that much about the Hawkeye Cauci, Pat Robertson would have won them in 1988.

As for Clinton, he claimed that he really looked into the matter and studied the Constitution hard, and has come to the conclusion that he cannot be his wife’s running mate. Slick’s reasoning was some long, convoluted rant about the 22nd Amendment, and therein he still made the implication that he could. I know Bill C. always had problems with the precise definition of simple two-letter words, and never let that ole antiquated Constitution in the way of his political will, so it’s refreshing that he cares about it for a change. In that spirit, let me present to you something from that selfsame document that’ll unambiguously end his hopes.

From the 12th Amendment:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves…

(snip)

…no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Those are the very first and very last sentences of the Amendment.

Unless Bill has moved out of Harlem, he and his wife live in the same state. Therefore, barring anything else, he couldn’t be her Vice-President — remember, in 2000, Dick Cheney had to change his residence from Dallas back to Wyoming (at least on paper) before George Bush could announce him as his running mate. While it does not explicitly prohibit a Presidential candidate choosing a running mate from his or her own state, it means that a Clinton-Clinton ticket could not legally get any electoral votes from New York, or a Bush-Cheney ticket in 2000, (assuming Cheney would not have “moved out” of Dallas), could not have received any Texas electoral votes, something which were vital for the latter, (and yes, in late December 2000, Democrats tried to make the case that Cheney really didn’t move out of Texas, to have the Federal courts nullify Texas’s electors), and will probably be vital for the former next year.

Even if Bill tried to turn that Cheney trick and “move” to another state, he would still be absolutely ineligible because of that part from the last sentence. He’s not eligible to be President anymore, because he has already used up his two terms. As such, he cannot become V-P.

Atlanta Cools On Sagging

Atlanta is the first major city to consider banning the “saggy” style of wearing your pants so low off your waist that it exposes much of your underwear, a style popularized by black prison culture.

I have already explained why these laws are on shaky Constitutional ground.

Denny Hastert Was Right, and James Madison Is Smiling From Above

Last year, when the FBI turned over Rep. William “Cold Cash” Jefferson’s Congressional office, then-Speaker Dennis Hastert held a press conference where he stated that while Jefferson should be investigated, it was wrong for the FBI to investigate, because the FBI is an agent of the Executive branch of government, and they were violating the separation of powers.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed today, stating that it was an improper thing for the FBI to do, and this likely means that any documents picked up in that raid won’t be able to be used in court against him.

Romney Issued No Pardons or Commutations During His Tenure as Massachusetts Governor

I take this to mean that he had intentions to run for President all along. After all, he saw how scandals over pardons affected the last Mass. governor that ran for President.

AP:

In his presidential bid, Romney often proudly points out that he was the first governor in modern Massachusetts history to deny every request for a pardon or commutation during his four years in office. He says he refused pardons because he didn’t want to overturn a jury.

I would have had more respect for him if he would have told the truth, that he didn’t want the albatross around his neck at a time like now. Instead, he gives this half-baked excuse about not wanting to overturn a jury. He must have forgotten that juries consist of human beings, and even twelve people convinced beyond a reasonable doubt can get it wrong. Even if they make the “right” decision based on evidence, sometimes evidence is fake, and testimony is deliberately false. And even in the pure and perfect administration of due process of law, the law itself can be an ass, as Samuel Johnson once said.

He must have also forgotten that the Founders and Framers gave executives of the Federal government and state governments this monarchial sort of power to have a safety valve to alleviate travesties of justice.

If nobody knew that he had such an obvious motive not to pardon anyone, adding to it that as Massachusetts has no death penalty, his neck was never on the line to pardon anyone at the last minute, it wouldn’t be unfair to ask whether Mitt Romney had any courage, and whether the state needed a chief executive at all.

The fact that he pardoned nobody should be as much of a scandal as it would have been if he would have made the wrong kind of pardons.

McCaskill vs Wheeler

Missouri U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill is a co-sponsor of the D.C. Voting Rights Compromise that would give D.C. a voting member of the U.S. House, in exchange for giving Utah one additional Congressional seat.

Once again, aside from the racial aspects of this all, I have a big Constitutional problem with the concept of giving D.C. such “voting rights,” either for President (which has been done) or for the House and/or Senate. The District of Columbia is a possession of the Federal government for a national capital, whereas the President, and House and Senate members are elected by people of the several states. Washington, D.C. is not a state, and should not be, so they shouldn’t get voting members of Congress.

However, David Wheeler has a good compromise, and one that would not fundamentally alter the body politic of the House and Senate too much. His solution is to count Washington, D.C. residents as part of Maryland’s population for Congressional apportionment, and allow them to vote in Maryland U.S. Senate elections. Even without D.C., Maryland will forever send two Democrats to the Senate and mostly Democrats to the House, and just adding D.C’s mostly black voters to that mix won’t make things any worse.

Demographically, Washington, D.C. itself and D.C.’s Maryland suburbs are fairly similar.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T, What Does It Mean To Them?

McPaper:

FAIRFAX, Va. — Each fall, Diana Schmiesing has her second-graders at Providence Elementary School develop their own constitution. Year after year, under Schmiesing’s subtle guidance, the pupils discover that all their suggestions boil down to: respect yourself, respect others, respect our classroom. Students sign them into law in a Constitution Day ceremony.

I hope that constitution has provisions in it for a judiciary, because “respect” is highly objective and subject to interpretation, and is indicative of a “living” document.

British House of Lords to Become 80% “Commons”

KSDK:

British lawmakers voted Wednesday to radically overhaul Parliament’s unelected House of Lords, approving a proposal to evict all remaining hereditary peers and to elect at least 80 percent of members.

After a series of House of Commons votes, legislators came out 305 to 267 in favor of developing laws to install a mix of 20 percent appointed and 80 percent elected members in Britain’s second chamber.

I’m not so sure that this is a good idea. I think that the British political process and the British people (as well as the American) do not benefit from further democratization. Similarly, I am for repealing the 17th Amendment so that the American Senate, the relative equivalent to the British House of Lords, has members that are elected by, and accountable to, states’ legislatures. In such a case, state governments and popular opinion can check each other in Congress. In the British system, the hereditary aristocracy and popular opinion can check each other (in theory).

Constitwofaced

Post-Dispatch is rightly upset that a State Senator from Southeast Missouri wants to water down ex post facto in order to force pre-1995 sex offenders to have to register. Recently, the Missouri Supreme Court found that doing so did qualify as ex post facto, and was unconstitutional.

This coming from the Post-Dispatch that tolerates every abrogation of the 2nd Amendment that the left wing can concoct. This coming from the same Post-Dispatch that couldn’t understand “plenary power” as it related to the constitutionality of Missouri’s CCW provisions and the clause dealing with Right To Bear Arms in the Missouri Bill of Rights. This coming from the same Post-Dispatch that probably turned its head when, twice in 2006, the U.S. JustUs Department and a Jim Talent-sponsored Senate bill each tried to go on an ex post facto witch hunt of anyone or anything it could find to charge something with in the 1955 murder of Emmett Till.

Hope Springs Eternal

Mayor Slay:

City To Get Rid Of Dead Wood

Could it be?  Does this mean that the Mayor, the Comptroller, the President of the Board of Aldermen, all but a few of the Aldermen, the Chief of Police, the entirety of the City School Board, much of the City School System’s administration and a good percentage of City workers will quit?  Does it means that a certain 53% of the population and a small minority of a certain 44% population will be moving elsewhere?

No such luck.  But there’s always hope.

Thou Shalt Not

Schlafly:

Some federal employees are griping because a new law requires them to take a 25-minute tutorial on the U.S. Constitution. Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) sponsored this law, along with a similar law requiring every public school to “hold an educational program on the United States Constitution on September 17,” which is Constitution Day.

For the modern domestic political left, reading the Constitution is just about as uncomfortable as a whore feels sitting in the pews on a Sunday morning listening to a hellfire and brimstone sermon, for just about the same reason.

Not to worry, though, if Robert Byrd is sponsoring this tutorial, the 25-minute course will probably present the Constitution in left-wing terminology, such as “living document, “equality,” “civil rights.”  Just as the whore can always find a charismatic, feel-good church.

By the way, aren’t Federal employees supposed to swear an oath to the Constitution?  If so, then they should spend a lot more than a half hour understanding the document they swore to uphold.