AMERICA - The Right Way!! (Day 1787) [Remember the Trade Center!!]

Do not let the victims of the attacks on New York and Washington, nor the brave members of our Nation's military who have given their lives to protect our freedom, die in vain!!

This is the 1787th day that ATRW has run an edition, and that was the year of our Lord in which the United States Constitution was presented to the several states for ratification. So it seems fitting that a pivotal Constitutional case has been brought before the Supreme Court.

The case, actually it is the merger of four cases into one, surrounds the interpretation of the Apportionment Clause in Article I Section 2 of the Constitution.

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative...

The Supreme Court took the case after lower courts had heard various suits brought about because of a certain set of activities in the state of Texas over the last few years.

Basically, the events unfolded in the following way. In 2000, the United States conducted its decinial census, and passed the relevent results along to the state of Texas, so it could undertake the requirements of redistricting to meet its new representative apportionment, as required by the Constitution. The state did so, and used the boundaries drawn for the 2002 election. Fifteen Republicans, out of 32 seats, were elected to Congress.

Republicans had attempted to change the districting map as being unfair, since their numbers had swelled in the state. If you recall, this sparked the infamous and cowardice flight of the other party to the great state of Oklahoma, who refused to extradite the miscreants. In any event, the GOP took control of the state's legislature, and passed a new districting map. As a result, the GOP gained six seats in the 2004 elections, and the losing party filed a number of lawsuits, four of which had sufficient merit in their writs of citiori to find favor, at least for a hearing, with the Supreme Court.

What is at issue is the fact that Texas did, legally, undertake two redistrictings during a single census cycle. Now whether that is an historic first is hard to say, but it is safe to say it is not a regular occurrence, and it is fair to understand why the other side is up in a wad over this.

But, is it against the rules? Refer back to the pertinent clause from the Constitution, the alleged guiding document of the Republic--alleged, because there have been some rights, such as abortion, that have been created from whole cloth (as an aside, this writer does believe there is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution, and it is in the Fourth Amendment, but that it was wrongly used to decide Roe, but that's another rant).

The Constitution clearly spells out the requirement to conduct a census. It also very clearly states that, after the first one, there shall be a regular occurrence of the census at ten year intervals. There is also the requirements levied upon all member states of the Union that it abide by the results of the census (implied) as the basis for conducting their apportionments (explicit) to determine the number of representatives that it will send to Congress.

It is also very clear the states must draw only a certain number of districts, and that such is determined by law by the Congress--currently set at 435 nationally. Amendment XIV amplifies upon this process with the one-man one-vote notion, and the Census Bureau, by Act of Congress, is responsible for determining the minimum and average district sizes to comply with that mandate, while sticking to the Congressional maximum of 435 seats. This is the apportionment of representatives, or apportionment, for short.

It is equally clear and distinct that it is only the census that may be used to determine the correct apportionment, and that states must use this information to create only a specific number of districts.

It is also abundently clear from the text of the Constitution that there is no limit as to the number of times that a given state, within the confines of the decenial period of the census, may undertake an redistricting process to determine how the state will be divided up in its representation.

Let's state that again--states may, within the context of Article I Section 2 of the United States Constitution, undertake as many redistrictings during a decenial census period as they like.

Now it has been custom, and indeed the custom has been written into many a state law, that the redistricting takes place only once every 10 years, after the census, and is binding for the balance of the census period. But laws within a state cannot, as a matter of juridictional principle, bind the state's legislature, either the current one or any in the future. It need only pass another law.

Indeed, it is from this precept that several states have redistricting clauses in their state constitutions, but they are of somewhat dubious jurisdictinoal value due to the supremecy of the United States Constitution, and the fact that it does speak to the subject.

Nevertheless, the left may have a point (yes, it's a stretch, but every once in a while the incongruent ramblings of the incoherent leftist rabble will, just out of shear random luck, actually put together two pieces of thought and form a point--so mark it on a calendar as it will not likely happen again for a long time to come). With a literal reading of the Constitution, then chaos could reign among the states regarding redistricting; every time the power structure changed in a state, regardless of the position in the decenial census cycle, redistricting could occur. It is equally true that the GOP should be careful of what it asks for as it might just get it.

First off, the Constitution is the organic law of the Nation. Organic law is that law which is most fundamental, that from which all other law must derive, thus its words are fundamental. And those words DO NOT include anything about a time requirement for redistricting.

Second, again with a literal reading of Article I Section 2, it is entirely possible that Congress could, and should, settle the matter with its own legislation. It can be argued, one could say persuasively, that Congress, because of the "in such manner as by law they shall direct" language, could tie the apportionment and redistricting processes together. Nevertheless, it is not, even in that manner, Constitutionally constrained, because it is not there.

Henry Hyde has been quoted as saying "facts are stubborn things," and the fact is the Constitution is silent on the question of the frequency of redistricting, and no manner of ranting and raving by anyone, from the right or from the left, will make it appear. Only a Constitutional Amendment can put it there, and none is is the works. The Supreme Court should find likewise, but in this era of finding unknown and heretofore unprinted language in the Constitution, it is hard to say.

Here's hoping the Roberts Court takes a stride back to the words that actually appear in the Constitution.

Well, as Homer Simpson has said, "I'm going to look quite the fool [if this has been posted already]!" but just found it at Reverse Retina, [A Milblog, the OLD site! New site!. As a plus, he not only podcasts but you can listen with Windoze Media Player!

Forgiveness, please if it has been posted already...

Subject: BEN STEIN'S LAST COLUMN

For many years Ben Stein has written a biweekly column called "Monday Night At Morton's." (Morton's is a famous chain of steakhouses known to be frequented by movie stars and famous people from around the globe.) Now, Ben is terminating the column to move on to other things in his life. Reading his final column is worth a few minutes of your time.

Ben Stein's Last Column... ============================================ How Can Someone Who Lives in Insane Luxury Be a Star in Today's World?

As I begin to write this, I "slug" it, as we writers say, which means I put a heading on top of the document to identify it. This heading is "e online FINAL," and it gives me a shiver to write it. I have been doing this column for so long that I cannot even recall when I started. I loved writing this column so much for so long I came to believe it would never end.

It worked well for a long time, but gradually, my changing as a person and the world's change have overtaken it. On a small scale, Morton's, while better than ever, no longer attracts as many stars as it used to. It still brings in the rich people in droves and definitely some stars. I saw Samuel L. Jackson there a few days ago, and we had a nice visit, and right before that, I saw and had a splendid talk with Warren Beatty in an elevator, in which we agreed that Splendor in the Grass was a super movie. But Morton's is not the star galaxy it once was, though it probably will be again.

Beyond that, a bigger change has happened. I no longer think Hollywood stars are terribly important. They are uniformly pleasant, friendly people, and they treat me better than I deserve to be treated. But a man or woman who makes a huge wage for memorizing lines and reciting them in front of a camera is no longer my idea of a shining star we should all look up to.

How can a man or woman who makes an eight-figure wage and lives in insane luxury really be a star in today's world, if by a "star" we mean someone bright and powerful and attractive as a role model? Real stars are not riding around in the backs of limousines or in Porsches or getting trained in yoga or Pilates and eating only raw fruit while they have Vietnamese girls do their nails.

They can be interesting, nice people, but they are not heroes to me any longer. A real star is the soldier of the 4th Infantry Division who poked his head into a hole on a farm near Tikrit, Iraq. He could have been met by a bomb or a hail of AK-47 bullets. Instead, he faced an abject Saddam Hussein and the gratitude of all of the decent people of the world.

A real star is the U.S. soldier who was sent to disarm a bomb next to a road north of Baghdad. He approached it, and the bomb went off and killed him.

A real star, the kind who haunts my memory night and day, is the U.S. soldier in Baghdad who saw a little girl playing with a piece of unexploded ordnance on a street near where he was guarding a station. He pushed her aside and threw himself on it just as it exploded. He left a family desolate in California and a little girl alive in Baghdad.

The stars who deserve media attention are not the ones who have lavish weddings on TV but the ones who patrol the streets of Mosul even after two of their buddies were murdered and their bodies battered and stripped for the sin of trying to protect Iraqis from terrorists.

We put couples with incomes of $100 million a year on the covers of our magazines. The noncoms and officers who barely scrape by on military pay but stand on guard in Afghanistan and Iraq and on ships and in submarines and near the Arctic Circle are anonymous as they live and die.

I am no longer comfortable being a part of the system that has such poor values, and I do not want to perpetuate those values by pretending that who is eating at Morton's is a big subject.

There are plenty of other stars in the American firmament...the policemen and women who go off on patrol in South Central and have no idea if they will return alive; the orderlies and paramedics who bring in people who have been in terrible accidents and prepare them for surgery; the teachers and nurses who throw their whole spirits into caring for autistic children; the kind men and women who work in hospices and in cancer wards.

Think of each and every fireman who was running up the stairs at the World Trade Center as the towers began to collapse. Now you have my idea of a real hero.

I came to realize that life lived to help others is the only one that matters. This is my highest and best use as a human. I can put it another way. Years ago, I realized I could never be as great an actor as Olivier or as good a comic as Steve Martin...or Martin Mull or Fred Willard--or as good an economist as Samuelson or Friedman or as good a writer as Fitzgerald. Or even remotely close to any of them.

But I could be a devoted father to my son, husband to my wife and, above all, a good son to the parents who had done so much for me. This came to be my main task in life. I did it moderately well with my son, pretty well with my wife and well indeed with my parents (with my sister's help). I cared for and paid attention to them in their declining years. I stayed with my father as he got sick, went into extremis and then into a coma and then entered immortality with my sister and me reading him the Psalms.

This was the only point at which my life touched the lives of the soldiers in Iraq or the firefighters in New York. I came to realize that life lived to help others is the only one that matters and that it is my duty, in return for the lavish life God has devolved upon me, to help others He has placed in my path. This is my highest and best use as a human.

Faith is not believing that God can. It is knowing that God will.

By Ben Stein

Right on, Ben!

In my youth I played music in Country Night Clubs... well OK.. I'll use the correct phrase... Honky Tonks... and I knew the song, "The girls all get prettier at closing Time" was true.

As I followed political races, it occurred to me that "The Polls all get more accurate at Voting time." is true as well. My practical experience told me campaigns were a lot more about getting the vote out.. than about changing minds from one candidate to another.

It also has occurred to me that "The news always gets less biased at results time."

Perhaps the second and third phrases say the same thing. When events prevent liars from getting away with lying, liars tell the truth.

I would suggest that the media be it ABC, NBC, CNN or FOR, have all decided to take a more positive approach to the war in Iraq. They get accurate when it gets close to an election. When elections are down the road they may infer that candidate B is doing well even when Candidate A is doing better. But when the election is nigh they tend to tell us A is doing well because we are soon enough going to know that A has won the election.

I am wondering if the sudden shift in the news focus is based on the fact that they know that soon enough the results of the war in Iraq will be apparent and the insurgents are going to be in deep trouble.

There is some reason the media complexion has turned from furrowed brow to a fair and smooth skin. It will be interesting to watch the coming weeks.

But I think that the democrats don't really understand how voter's minds work. Democrats strategists will tell you that they have no fear of turning from pro to con and back to pro again. They will tell you voters have very short memories.

That is true. For example voters can not tell you what positions the Democrats have taken on defense and foreign policy. They do not know. But they have a strong feeling that Democrats will not protect the nation.

What the Democrats don't understand is voters draw conclusions and remember the conclusions but not the facts the conclusions were based upon. In voters minds. impressions become opinions and opinions determine votes. The fact that voter can't remember the events that created the impressions is not a factor. But to Democrats that is the big factor.

What makes that doubly bad for Democrats is there is no way to refute the conclusion once the impressions upon which the conclusions were drawn are forgotten.

Democrats think that when they have been found to have a bad policy all they have to do is reverse positions and the public will accept it. They believe that the public's bad memory is their protection. It is no such thing.

But if the voters think the Democrats are weak on defense and the democrats start talking tough on defense the public draws the conclusion they are lying or worse yet, that Democrats will change their minds on a whim.

What the democrats have done over the years is lose the publics trust as has the media.

What the Democrats and the media fail to understand is a large majority of Americans now feel safe. Nearly as safe as they felt before 9/11. The other factor is a large and growing majority Americans feel the economy is good. In that scenario voters do not want change. The voters will not want change.. change may screw up the economy or cost them their safety. In the current situation they will not vote for change.

And the problem with saying that every thing is Bush's fault, is there is no escaping the voters concluding the safety and prosperity are Bush's doing.

Under that situation the voters will not want change. Voters are very into ... if it ain't broke .. don't fix it.

The Democrats in 2006 and again in 2008 will be very anti Bush. The Voters will interpret that as Democrats proposing to undo what Bush has wrought. That means undo safety and prosperity.

That is not a winning hand, no matter how hard the media tries to tell us it is.

When you get a chance to read this, please let me know your thoughts. This goes for everyone else as well.

On the way home tonight I heard an interview with the Indiana Secretary of State, Todd Rokita. His main discussion was on election reform in Indiana.

Indiana requires a picture ID in the new law which was just passed. If you don't have a drivers' license you can get an ID from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. If you are poor, you can get an ID for free. Without this ID you will not be able to vote.

In addition, the voter roles will be purged of dead people, because Indiana has figured out a way to link voter records with death records. And also, when you move and register in a new precinct, your old precinct will be flagged by computer so that you are purged from the voter rolls of yoour old precinct. Rokita says that he thinks we will lose at least 20% of the registered voters due to the elimination of duplicate registrations and dead people.

He also said that Indiana has been updating their voting machines, and the State has insisted on improving them even in areas where the local officials said they were satisfied with theier current set up (and may I say I bet those were democrat areas!).

Rokita said that he has had federal officials coming to Indiana for briefings, and that he has been to Washington several times to discuss Indiana's plan.

I thought this was very interesting, and seems to indicate an under the radar approach to vote reform.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.