Logical Extension of Cutting NPRs Funding Due to Juan William's Firing

The way a significant number of the argument for defunding NPR after the firing Juan William's go something like this: "NPR receives federal funds and therefore violated Juan William's First Amendment Rights by firing him for his comments." Essentially saying that because NPR receives some federal funding, they are a quasi government entity and therefore must follow government personel rules. One website even went on to analyis NPR funding down to what it is indirectly receiving through tax exempt contributions.

It is harder to fire people in the government because there is the fear of politically motivated terminations that would have a chilling effect on government employees. Most private employment is at will and terminations can be for almost any reason. My question is: What if we started treating any entity that receives federal funding as a quasi governmental organization? General Motors? Citibank? Chase? What about Government contractors? Lockheed? Boeing? Worse yet, if you follow WND's analysis of indirect funding through tax benefits, this probably extends to any number of companies including all of Big Oil and Big Ag. Should all of these company be restricted in their ability to fire people because they receive federal funding either directly or indirectly?

This seems to me the logical extension of treating NPR like a quasi governmental organization because it receives federal funding and tax exemptions. To scream for the defunding of NPR because it fired someone over comments made to another media outlet could lead to the exact opposite of what Republicans profess to want. It would severily restrict private industry's ability to conduct its business.

If you want to defund NPR because you think the government should be in the media business that is understandable, but do not use NPR's business decision to fire Juan Williams as an excuse. It could lead down a road that no reasonable person would want.

Mr. Donofri's view on Natural Born Citizens

This post is in response to Leo Donofrio's article on World Net Daily last week regarding Natural Born Citizenship. Based on my reading of the underlying case law, Mr. Donofrio's discussion of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) in support of the notion that children born of foreign nationals is not entirely accurate.

He selectively quotes part of a paragraph from what is an extremely long and detailed decision.

Mr. Donofrio's selection:

That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection (that is, in relation to citizenship), reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. ... At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens. ..."

The paragraph as it appears on Lexis:

That neither Mr. Justice Miller, nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases, understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship,) "reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance." "At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country, of [*680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or [***902] natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are [**469] themselves citizens." Minor v. Happersett, (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.

The court did not define "natural born citizen" as only children born in the US of US Citizens. It states that is has never been in question, but that there have been questions whether children born of forereign parents in the US are natural born citizens. The court also states they are not resolving that question.

The court states earlier that at Common Law in effect at the time the adoption of our Constitution, children born of foreign parents were considered natural born subjects/citizens, and that as of this desion, that common law rule continued to prevail:

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction, of the English Sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established. 169 U.S. 649 at 658.

Further, at 674-675, the court states:

Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, [**467] but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional [*675] Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.
V. In the fore front, both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.

The Common Law of England was the law of our nation at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and has only been changed through legislative action and subsequent court decisions. It is should be noted that though the Court does not explicitly say that Ark was a natural born citizen, nor does it explicitly state that natural born citizens are limited to those born in US of US citizens. It merely states children born of foreigners within the bounds of the US are citizens. The questions of "natural-born citizenship" was not before the Court. Neither Minor or Ark state only children born in the US of US citizens are natural born citizens. However, the court in Ark seems to imply that at Common Law in place at the time of decision and the signing of the Constitution granted natural-born status to children born in the US to foreigners.

With regards to the translation of Mr. Vattel's "Law of Nations" stating that "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." The Ark court specifically addressed the belief that the citizenship of children follow their parents. At pg 666-667, the Court specifically found that there was not such a law of nations at the time of the adoption of the constitution or the 14th Amendment: "There is, therefore, little ground for the theory that, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, there was any settled and definite rule of international law, generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion." It is up to individual nations to determine their citizenship rules, so Mr. Vattel's statement has little bearing. I would also note that Mr. Donofrio's reliance on Chief Justice Marshall's adoption of Mr. Vattel's language in The Venus, 12 U.S. 253, 289 (1814), is perhaps misplaced as the Chief Justice was writing in concurrence, and his adoption of Mr. Vattel's language was not the decision of the court, a fact that is not noted. Mr. Vattel is also mentioned by the dissenting Justice in Ark, not by the majority.

The arguments in Mr. Donofrio's article are weak and a complete mischaracterization of the decisions in Minor, Ark, and The Venus. None of these cases stand for the proposition that a child born in the US of foreign parents is not a natural born citizen and raise good arguments for the opposite proposition, that any child born in the US, regardless of parentage, is a natural born citizen of the United States.

National Popular Vote Update

Ok, today has just turned into revisit old postings.  It is not like President Obama named his choice to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court this week or anything.

Back in 2008 I had a discussion about the National Popular Vote Movement.  

For a quick review: this is basically a movement towards a popular vote system without amending the Constitution.  Individual states pass laws that require their electoral votes to be given to the winner of the national popular vote for President.  Once this has passed in the number of states equallying 270 electoral votes, it will effectively make the Electoral College meaningless.  Click here for a link to the website.

Current Status:

5 States have passed a measure into law. (Total of 60 Electoral Votes)

5 Have passed it in both houses of the legislature.

8 Have passed it in one house of the legislature

7 Have passed committee 

8 Have had hearings

15 Have introduced bills

2 Are currently drafting bills

We will see what happens.  I still am not sure whether this is the best idea, but I believe the constitutional implications of enough states passing measures like this will be unique.

Why we have National Parks...again

Well, back in 2007, I posted this about National Parks.  I have been doing some more traveling since then and here are some more beautiful shots of lands we have decided are worth protecting from development and resource exploitations:

Bryce Canyon National Park

Zion National Park from Angel's Landing

Canyon Lands National Park

Delicate Arch in Arches National Park

Cliff Palace in Mesa Verde National Park

If you have the chance, I highly sugggest checking them out.  All of them have some great back country hiking (I can speak directly to Bryce and Zion), but all can also be seen with day hikes or even from the parking lots.  

Is he a natural born citizen?

That is the question that the extreme right continues to ask, especially the people over at Worldnetdaily.

Basically, it really comes down to is either (a) Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen, is ineligible to be President, and got a number of assorted officials to go along with it; or (b) He and his guys are even sharper than we thought and have managed to keep the extreme right really distracted on basically a nothing issue.

Apparently, having a printed birth certificate certified by the state of Hawaii isn't enough for them.  I have to say, if there is another issue to get some of your adversaries to focus on, this is it.  Bravo.  This has been a headline in one form or another over at Worldnetdaily and other right wing websites since almost as long as I have been checking them out.  I am willing to bet that the people on Team O have a brand spanking new "long form" (whatever the hell that is, the one shown looks like a Hawiian version of my birth certificate) birth certificate and are laughing their way all the way to carbon emission caps and universal healthcare.  

Soda Tax

This is an interesting idea that Governor Patterson is suggesting: An 18% tax on sugary drinks to raise some money to help the NYS Budget.  There are obvious questions as to what would constitute a taxable drink, but the op-ed brought up some stuff that I had never really thought about; like how for hunger purposes, your body treats soda like water, so after drinking this high calorie drink, you are still hungry and proceed to go eat that high calorie meal.  This is what makes soda slightly different than Twinkies or whoppers.  It also references the fact that smoking really didn't start dying out until a tax was put on it and that for every 10% tax on cigarettes, there was  3% drop in smoking and 7% drop among teens.  

Walk into your child's high school;  Is there a vending machine with Twinkies?  Is there a Burger King?  Is there a Pepsi or Coke Machine?  10 years ago, when I was in High School, the answers were No, No, Yes.  I can't imagine that has really changed.

Burn Out

Like a lot of people, I am buuuuurrrrnnnnneeeed out from the election, so it is break time from Blogging. I will be back soon with such highlights as the Bush Administrations parting gifts.

Voter Turn Out

So I am glad to hear that there is huge turnout around the country. I am saddened to hear that a lot of polling places in previously low turn out districts are under staffed and having problems with their machines, including not having enough of them. But no matter what, it is incredible that so many people are coming out. It does surprise me in my neighborhood. I live in the most densly populated county in the country and when I went to the polls, only about 10 people had voted in my district as of 2pm. Great for me, short wait, but hopefully it comes up as the afternoon goes on.

Forgive me for my Keith Olbermann moment, but I do have to comment on these reports of people handing out fliers saying things like: "Becuase of such high voter turnout, [Party A]are voting on Tuesday and [Party B] are voting on Wednesday." and "If you (as a student) register to vote at college, you will lose your financial aid" and "If you have unpaid parking tickets, you can't vote." If tell people things like that, or print and hand out fliers saying things like that, you are a Fascist. I don't use that word lightly. In fact I have only ever described one person I know as a Fascist, but if you are going out of your way to convince people that they cannot or should not vote, then you are un-American, un-Democratic, and a Fascist. If you believe that it is better for our country that certain people do not vote, you are a Fascist. If you believe that the otherside has nothing constructive to bring to the debate and to the government, you are a Fascist.

I believe in my point of view and, right now, think it is the correct one. However, I welcome your reasoned and intelligent arguments as to why your point of view is correct. I want you to vote for the people you think are best so that when I vote for the people I think are best, they get to Washington, or Albany, or Sacramento, or Richmond and have reasoned debate to come up with what the Goverment is going to do, for better or for worse. As soon as you start thinking the American people, all of the American people, shouldn't be helping to make the decision on who will help lead this country, you have abandoned the Democratic Ideals that are the basis of our Republican form of government.

If you need any reminder of who we are and where we come from, read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, Democracy in America, The Gettysburg Address. If you haven't read those (at least the first two and last one), it just goes further to show what is wrong with our Education System. Read them, discuss them, respect other points of view, don't discourage people you disagree from voting, encourage those people to vote and discuss their views with them. That is how this country will move forward, how we will move beyond the diversity that has infected this country for the last 30 years, and how we will regain our standing in the world as a leader in democracy, free thought, cooperation, and innovation.

So if you haven't voted yet, your time is running out. Remember, if you don't vote, Anne Coulter and Kieth Olbermann are making your decision for you.

Don't Forget To Vote!!!

That is all.

Election Predictions

Everyone else is doing it, so why not me.

1st, we will know by 9:15 eastern who the next President is, that is when the majority of the east coast and Colorado have closed. Once we know Ohio, PA, FL, NC, and CO, we will know who it is (I predict we will know even earlier, but it is possible that the 4-Corners could be the deciding factor).

2nd, I predict Barack Obama with 52% of the popular vote and 321 Electoral Votes.

3rd, Democrats will control the Senate, but only with 57 Senators, not their desired 60.

4th, Democrats will control the House with 254 Congressmen and Congresswomen.

Finally, these are all guesses, just like every other prediction. If I am right on any but the first one, I will be incredibly impressed with myself.

Don't forget to vote!

In other news...

I got a new "netbook" that I really just want to show off: The Acer Aspire One.

First thing about it, small. The screen is 8.9 inches and the case is 9.8x6.7x1.14 and it weighs only 2.2 lbs. The cashier at Staples didn't believe I was buying a laptop. comes with 1gig ram, 120 gig hard drive, and a 1.6 ghz single core processor. This thing is not going to be breaking any speed records, but I own coats that it could fit in the pocket of. It is almost as fast, has 3 times more memory and twice the ram of my 4 year old 14 lb IBM Thinkpad G40. It comes with an SD drive, 3 USB Ports, serial port, and internal wireless. The battery lasts 3 hours, but you can upgrade it to 6 hours. They even cram an internal webcam and mic above the screen. Best of all, it comes with XP or Linux Lite, no Vista! (note, the Linux version only an 8 gig internal flash drive instead of internal hardrive)

The keyboard is a bit small, but I am actually typing on it right now with little difficulty. It just takes some getting used to. There are no stereo speakers so the best sound comes from the head phones. The touch bad is not surprisingly small and the mouse buttons are on the side, but you get used to it. The screen is small, but it works for me. You don't want to buy this computer for any other reason except you want to use the internet, do some typing, and play music anywhere. Obviously don't buy it for gaming or if you don't travel much. But it is perfect for the person who is always on the road and doesn't want to carry something really heavy around.

And yes, I typed this post on it.

Guilt by Association Continues...

I don't know: Is The Crucible on the list of books Sarah Palin allegedly tried to ban? It is beginning to get a little ridiculous with this whole guilt by Association for Obama. Now they are trying to tie him to Saddam Hussein. Ignore the fact that the US Government basically propped Saddam up and that people close to Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and McCain have had dealings with Saddam and or his government. We will just stick to the two big ones:
1. William Timmons: "William Timmons, the Washington lobbyist who John McCain has named to head his presidential transition team, aided an influence effort on behalf of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to ease international sanctions against his regime."
2. Donald Rumsfeld: "With the Iran-Iraq war escalating, President Ronald Reagan dispatched his Middle East envoy, a former secretary of defense, to Baghdad with a hand-written letter to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and a message that Washington was willing at any moment to resume diplomatic relations. That envoy was Donald Rumsfeld."

If you are going to attack someone on something, make sure you aren't potentially guilty of the same thing. Another good example of this is accusing the other Candidate of working with a group that might have fraudulently registered voters when you have been paying a guy who rips up voter registration forms or changes the party affiliation on them.

And I thought "Van Palin" was bad

Can't donate to your favorite political campaign? Name your child after the candidates. Even better if you don't tell your spouse.

McCain's Guilt By Association

If we are going to talk about Obama's associates, we should also talk about McCain's associates.

Apparently, McCain's Presidential Transition Chief worked with other lobbyist on behalf of Saddam Hussein's Government in trying to ease sanctions after the first Gulf War, when Iraq was a Rogue State. The two other lobbyists were convicted of acting as unregistered agents of Iraq.

Is there a Republican who doesn't have connections to the Hussein government?

Ireland's Business Tax

In tonight's debate, John McCain asked why our business tax is so much higher than Ireland's. My answer? Defense spending. In fiscal year 2008, the United States spent $623 billion on Defense. Something around 36% of our budget. The estimated 2004 international spending outside the US? $500 Billion. In 2001, Ireland spent only $700 million in defense spending. We have higher taxes than the rest of the world because we spend more on "defense" than every other nation in the world.

Palin v. Flyers

It is obvious to me that Sarah Palin's Handlers are not Hockey Fans and possibly not even sports fans. They sent her into Philadelphia for a Rangers (Who Won!) v. Flyers game. You send a ultra conservative, pro-life, pro-gun woman into one of the most liberal cities in America to attend a Hockey game between two huge rivals in front of some of the rowdiest, meanest, loudest fans in America who are already worked up over a rivalry game. If you aren't liked by Philadelphia Fans, they will not show you any respect. It is no surprise that Sara Palin got deafening boos. That was really just poor judgment on the part of the McCain campaign. Send her to a Avalanche or (maybe) a Red Wings game, but not a Flyers Game.

Bill Ayers

I really just have to wonder: How many people who were under the age of 10 during the Days of Rage know who Bill Ayers was? For that matter, how many people under the age of 10 during the Days of Rage even know what it was? The only reason I know who he is is because we discussed him in my Civil Disobedience Class in Law School. I know a lot of very educated people, even some from Chicago who had no idea who Bill Ayers was until they heard Sarah Palin talk about him and decided to Google him.

Reading about it and speaking to people about it, I always come back to the same questions:
1. How can you work on serious education reform in Chicago and not cross paths with Bill Ayers?
2. How can you blame a fledgling politician for attending or even having a fundraiser hosted for him by a leader in Education reform in his home town?
3. Does one really expect a community organizer to turn down the chairmanship on and Annenberg Foundation Board?

Yes, Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground did some pretty horrible stuff in Protest of the Vietnam War and to "Bring the War Home;" But since then, he has worked hard on education policy and is an honored citizen of Chicago. Were he now planning attacks to "Bring the War Home" from the rest of the world I would question Barack Obama's judgment in associating with him. I bet Sarah Palin did not know who Bill Ayers was until he was given to her as a talking point and it would not surprise me that Barack Obama did not know who he was until relatively recently.

Trooper Gate

I heard last night and read today in the NYTimes that Todd Palin answered his interrogatories and that others involved, including the special assistant to the former Public Safety Commissioner of Alaska, are speaking out about how much communication there was between Governor Palin's Office and the PSC's Office. It is estimated that in 19 months, the Governor's Office, the Governor, or the Governor's Husband contacted the PSC's office 36 times regarding the Governor's former brother-in-law, Trooper Wooten.

I had no way of knowing whether Wooten is truly a present threat to the Governor or her family, I just think they went about dealing with it in the wrong way. He went through a nasty divorce with the Governor's sister. There were some allegedly nasty things said, having working in Matrimonial law, I would not be surprised if most of them were true. Divorce can be nasty, it brings out the worst in people. The was evidently enough for a Domestic Violence Restraining order to be filed, but it was quashed because of lack of evidence. The death threat was not even communicated to the target, Governor Palin's Father, until 2 weeks to a month after it happened. The threat was not even communicated to authorities immediately, something most people would do if they thought the threat was credible. If you tell the police 6 months after the death threat is made, they are not going to take it very seriously because they will not believe you took it seriously. Wooten does not seem to be a great person. Internal affairs found that he did threaten his ex-father-in-law's life, illegally shot a moose, drove with an open container in his squad car, and tasered his son. Honestly, with those violations of laws and trooper policy, it would not have been uncalled to either terminate him with cause or request his resignation.

There were other avenues that Governor Palin's family could have pursued without at least the appearance of using the influence of the Governor's Office to get Trooper Wooten fired. I honestly don't have a problem with the Governor's Office requesting that Trooper Wooten not be assigned to events she is attending with her family, but as Governor and a potential national leader, you should be able to deal with your Ex-brother in law. But if the Governor's office got involved beyond a possible threat to the Governor or her family, which there has been no indication of problems since prior to her becoming Governor, it was inappropriate. If there have been problems since, should have been handled through the legal system.

As for the investigation of the dismissal of the Public Safety Commission over his refusal to fire Trooper Wooten, Sarah Palin fed the fire for this investigation. When the legislative investigation began in July, Governor Palin welcomed the probe saying she had nothing to hide and pledged her and her staff's cooperation with the legislature in its investigation. Then she got tapped for McCain's VP. All of the sudden, not 2 days after her and the McCain campaign's most recent statement of cooperation, Governor Palin requested that the personnel board review the dismissal, not the legislature, and directed her lawyer to get the legislature to drop the investigation. That is why we have Trooper Gate. That sent a signal to every blogger, newspaper reporter, and non-republican (and probably some of them too) that something was wrong here. If not actually impropriety, then at least the appearance of it and these people want to know what happened before they decide whether they want Governor Palin one heart beat from the presidency.

The question of whether as Governor, Palin improperly used her influence and fired a man who did not give in, is a valid one and should be investigated. It is not like Bay Buchanan's outrageous suggestion on CNN Election Center last night that there should be investigation into whether Barack Obama was a drug dealer on the streets of Chicago, something of which there is NO indication of anywhere (and if there was, someone would have come forward with it).

Note: Critique me or not, my rendition of what happened or allegedly happened in the Divorce and Investigation of Trooper Wooten came from Wikipedia.

Healthcare like the financial Markets?

This is from Paul Krugman:

September 19, 2008, 7:24 pm

McCain on banking and health

OK, a correspondent directs me to John McCain’s article, Better Health Care at Lower Cost for Every American, in the Sept./Oct. issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries. You might want to be seated before reading this.

Here’s what McCain has to say about the wonders of market-based health reform:

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

So McCain, who now poses as the scourge of Wall Street, was praising financial deregulation like 10 seconds ago — and promising that if we marketize health care, it will perform as well as the financial industry!

This is a September/October 2008 edition. Check out bottom of the first column on Page 30 of the magazine (Page 3 of the PDF)

Federal Taxes paid v. Benefits received

So I am sitting here watching McCain talk about how Obama has requested over $900 Million in federal funds for Illinois. (He did not mention whether this was in 2007, 2008, or over his tenure as a Senator). I will take that figure as about accurate because really I am just concerned with how much states pay and how much they receive in federal money. To this end I visited The Tax Foundation website to check out the 2005 numbers. I can't imagine any of the candidates has had much time to get pork for themselves in 2008. Here are the numbers for the 4 state who have candidates in this presidential election:

Taxes Paid Funds received (in Millions)
Alaska $4,830 $9,230
Arizona $35,988 $44,639
Delaware $6,662 $5,495
Illinois $99,776 $80,778

Alaska received $1.84; Arizona recieved $1.19, Delaware received $.77, and Illinois received $.75 for every dollar sent to Washington. Now that is only 2005, the Foundation does not have more recent numbers yet and I don't have time right now to track down more recent numbers. However, the ratios probably have not changed that much. I will find them when I can or if you have a link, please post. If the ratios are still the same, it is really hard for the candidates from receiver states to call out the candidates from donor states on pork.

It might be interesting to take a look at the Ranks in states for money received per dollar paid in federal taxes. You might notice how Red the top is and how blue the bottom is.