"Senator Burris"--get used to that sound

As anyone reading this no doubt knows, indicted Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich appointed former Roland Burris to fill the Senate seat vacated by Obama after he was elected President. Burris himself seems unobjectionable, having had an honorable career in Illinois politics--serving as both Comptroller (1979-91) and Attorney General (1991-95).

The issue is with the Governor who appointed him, especially given that the charges against Blagojevich include endeavoring to cash in his power to appoint a replacement for Obama. The Democratic leadership in the Senate has vowed to block the Burris selection for that reason, citing its ability under Article I, Section V of the Constitution that states that "Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members" As legal experts have pointed out, the Supreme Court case of Powell v. McCormack, 390 U.S. 486 (1969) would seem to make the exercise of that power inapplicable in this case.

That case centered on the reelection of Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. to the House in 1966. He had been a committee chairman in the 89th Congress and had been accused of misrepresenting travel expenses and ordering illegal salary payments to his wife. When the 90th Congress convened in 1967, it voted to deny Powell his seat. A lawsuit was brought against the House and some of its officers by Powell and 13 voters of his Congressional district which went up to the Supreme Court which held, in an 8-1 decision, that the clause regarding qualifications was limited to the constitutional qualifications regarding age, citizenship and residence. The opinion, written by Chief Justice Warren, placed great emphasis on the importance in a republic of the electorate getting to chose its own representation.

This would seem to preclude Reid acting on his threat to not seat Burris, has being appointed by an indicted governor doesn't fall with the eligibility requirements. However, Reid is taking the position that the appointment itself is tainted by fraud. This would tie into the "elections" and "returns" part of Art. I, Sec. 5 and not the qualifications part. One should note that the grounds used against Powell concerned his actions in the House, not his actions as a candidate. This would seem to flank Powell v. McCormack. One example of this was the reelection of Theodore Bilbo to the Senate in 1946. The majority (of the opposite party, incidentally) move to not seat him on the grounds that he had incited violence against black voters and had taken bribes. Bilbo died before the matter was resolved. An earlier example was in 1927 in William Vare had been elected to the Senate from Pennsylvania. The Senate refused to seat him on the grounds of fraud committed by him in both the primary and the general election.

In both cases, it was the Senator-elect who had been guilty of corrupt practices. In this case, the taint is on the Governor who appointed him. Unless the Senate can find some evidence of a corrupt bargain in which Burris was involved, it's hard to see how the Bilbo and Vare cases are of precedential value. However, reports discussing the people to whom Blagojevich was referring to during the wiretapped conversations don't mention Burris. The Constitution, in specifying what Congress can judge in seating its members, has limited the latter's discretion to what would appear to be corruption in the election process itself.

The other issue is that Art. I, Sec. 5 talks about the Senate judging elections and returns, not appointments. Although this seems like a technical quibble, the fact is that, although there can often be disputes about who won an election, the recipient of an appointment is going to be obvious. On the other hand, this clause was part of the original Constitution, which had state legislatures elected Senators so the clause would seem to cover selections by the political branches of the state. Further, such judgments aren't just a question of who won but of the validity of the votes cast, so there is still a corruption issue.

Given all that, it doesn't seem that Reid has sufficient grounds to bar Burris. But he can certainly stall things for a bit. The Illinois law that covers this issue, 10 ILCS 5/Art. 25, Sec. 8, requires that Burris run in 2010 and again in 2012. He has a weak track record in running for higher office, having lost Democratic primaries for Governor in 1994, 1998 and 2002 and Mayor of Chicago in 1995. Further, he would be 73 when the first election took place, making his age a factor. If Burris insists on taking the seat, nothing prevents someone like, Jesse Jackson, Jr. from running against him in a primary, with the support of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. With a primary challenge facing him and his attempt to sit in the Senate hanging fire in the courts, he may decide that it's too much trouble and withdraw, allowing Blagojevich's successor to make an appointment.

Saturnalia

As a pagan of largely Italian descent, I like to hearken back to the old Roman holiday of Saturnalia, a Roman festival taking place in mid-December.

I'm also partial to the interpretation of Jasmine, a character on the sadly-defunct comic Boondocks, believed that Christmas was about how Santa died for our gifts, but that he rose on Chrismtas day to forgive us our sins and give us eternal presents.

A Happy Christmahanakwanzakaa to all!

Extreme Papal fallibility

The BBC News website mentioned that Pope Benedict XVI asserted that "saving" humankind from homosexuality is as important as saving the rain forest.

Two points. First is the question of a lecture in sexual morality from a man who was the point man during the last pontificate for the Church's efforts to keep the US pedophilia scandal under wraps and trying accused priests in secret ecclesiastical courts in Rome.

Second is the vastly different levels of scientific foundation for the threat levels involved. There is a scientific consensus that rain forests provide a great deal of the world's oxygen (in addition to being an important carbon sink). The idea that homosexuality is some sort of disorder was been dimissed by the American Psychiatric and American Psychological Associations back in the 70s.

All hail our new masters!

The Economist's World in 2009 isn't online so I just thought I'd pass on the precis of its one-page prognostication regarding science next year. Looking backwards, 2009 will mark the bicentennial of Darwin's birth and the sesquicentennial of the publication of Origin of Species.

There will likely be the world's first totally artificial living creature. It will use a natural bacterium shell but it's genes were made and spliced in a lab. The biologist is one Craig Venter. When accused of playing God, he replied "We're not playing". Have to love the sheer elan of that.

Advances in stem-cell research should defuse the controversy since the science has advanced to the point that such cells can be manufactured without recourse to embryos.

Likewise, after repairs, the Large Hadron Collider should be up and running.

There is, of course, only one possible outcome. We will one day be dominated by a lab-born race of artificial super-beings who will be able to live forever with the help of stem-cell grown transplants and who will wield artificially-created black holes as a weapon of conquest.

They still can't be any worse than Bush.

Debunking myths about atheism

I just heard (via Alternet) about a column that the atheist writer Sam Harris wrote in the LATimes back in 2006. As an atheist myself, I thought I'd link to it. Note that this is a "reprint" of that piece on Mr. Harris's website.

The Alternet piece is pretty good too

Political hot potato?

The Iraqi with the not-quite-good-enough aim has apparently become a cause celebre in Iraq. If Maliki's not careful, he could find that sentiment hurting him in the provincial elections. I wonder if al-Zaidi has formed a PAC yet.

Remedial History for VPs

Here is the transcript of Cheney's interview today on the Neo-con Press Annex (aka, Fox). This is the fun part...

We did it in a manner that I believe and the lawyers that we looked to for advice believed was fully consistent with the Constitution and with the laws of the land. And there's, I say, ample precedent for it.

If you think about what Abraham Lincoln did during the Civil War, what FDR did during World War II, they went far beyond anything we've done in the global war on terror.

But we have exercised, I think, the legitimate authority of the president under Article 2 of the Constitution as commander in chief in order to put in place policies and programs that have successfully defended the nation.

The inaccuracy of those historical comparisons is awe-inspiring. Let's first look at the scope of the crises that Lincoln and FDR faced. The US Civil War (I think War of the Rebellion is more accurate, but that's another post) killed a half-million, that's about 125,000 a year. It was also an existential threat to the United States. WWII involved a global war against two powerful countries (and Italy), one of which had overrun virtually all of Europe--a situation that would've left us with a dictatorial, genocidal foe in command of the resources of a continent.

As for the so-called "War on Terror". 9/11 was a ghastly event but a terrorist strike that killed almost 3000 people isn't close to being on the scale of the two wars in question. Although al-Qaida can cause grievous damage and very much needs to be stopped, it simply doesn't have the destructive power of an armed state. Likewise, outside of Afghanistan, it is more a function of intelligence and police work than a war. Further, the US/Allied non-Afghan military death toll in Afghanistan is about 1,300. Bush doesn't have anything close to the level of justification that Lincoln and FDR could claim.

Cheney wasn't specific as to the exact actions of Lincoln and FDR that was using for a comparison. If he's referring to the mass imprisonment of Americans of Japanese descent and Japanese aliens in concentration camps, it's probably a bad call from a forensic standpoint. Outside of Michelle Malkin, I don't know of any public figure who defends that action now. In fact, the US officially apologized and paid reparations. Cheney uses the argument that such actions "go beyond" anything the Bush administration did. So his defense of torture, extraordinary rendition and Gitmo is that at least we didn't round up all the Arab-Americans in Dearborn and send them to concentration camps in Kansas?

Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus but the Constitution permits that in "cases of rebellion or invasion." The attempted secession of a large part of the country and the seizure of federal assets therein would seem to count as the former. A single terror strike hardly constitutes an invasion. The main objection to Lincoln's act is that such suspension is properly in the power of Congress, not the President. Further, the use of the comparison to justify this administration's actions fails in the face of Ex parte Milligan, which held that, as long as civilian courts were open, military tribunals couldn't be used. Further, nothing in the interview gets around the fact that the policy is 0-3 in the Supreme Court.

None of this should be surprising coming from members of an administration that has started engaging in revisionist history.

UAW canard

The main obstacle to a bailout plan for the Big Three American automakers (GM, Ford, Chrysler) is from Republican senators who have demanded a strict timetable of UAW giveaways such as lowering salaries to that of non-union plants in the South prior to approving any deal. Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee has been a point man on this.

However, a piece on CNNMoney.com suggests that much of the Republicans' concerns (including what is probably the big tale out there, the $70/hr. UAW worker) is one big canard.

His points--
Hourly wages in Detroit and at Toyota are about the same.
The big difference is in retiree benefits. One point not made here but that I've seen elsewhere is the the longer presence of the Big Three in this country is one of the reasons for that. The post states that the UAW has created trust funds to cover this so the auto companies won't have to do so indefinitely.

Perhaps part of the bailout could go to the trust funds so the auto companies could stop contributing sooner rather than later.

A report by an auto industry analyst indicates that the ten most efficient auto plans are all unionized and 9 of them belong to domestic automakers. GM did some crowing about that for those who want to see some specifics.

There was also a column in the November 17 (which says that it has been updated since) that deconstructs some of the tales around this issue.

Setting the bar a bit high

Bush remarked regarding the money he's thrown at the credit crisis that he didn't want to be known as the next Herbert Hoover. Given that he is likely to end up at the very bottom of the presidential rankings along with Buchanan, Harding and Pierce, I'd say he'd have to work his way up to Hoover before that became an issue.

Hoover had failed to arrest the progress of the Depression and he made the mistake of signing the Smoot-Hawley tariff into law, but he had a solid list of accomplishments both before being in office that is far superior to Dubya's history of failure followed by bailouts from his father's friends. Hoover was a SUCESSFUL businessman. During WWI, his relief efforts for Belgian civilians made him a hero in that country and, after the war, expanded those efforts to combat famine in much of the rest of Europe. As Commerce Secretary, he handled relief efforts for the Great Mississippi Flood much better than the Bush administration handled Katrina.

Hoover as President was a competent technocrat who couldn't think outside the box in a situation that required it. Bush probably can't even pronounce "competent technocrat".

Democracy in Iraq? Maliki's purge squad

There was an article in the 12/17 issue of the Times entitled 35 Iraq Officials Held in Raids on Key Ministry which a round-up of officials who were ostensibly tied to some sort of surreptitious Ba'ath network. This squad had also conducted a raid on a provincial council which rounded up the sole Sunni Arab on it. One of the noteworthy points of the article was that the arrests were made by a force that reports directly to Maliki.

He not only has failed to integrate the Sunnis of the Awakening Councils into the Defense and Interior Ministries, he has started trying to round up many of their leaders. Indeed, McClatchy reported back in August that his government actually aspires to disband the vast majority of them.

I have to wonder if Maliki's "victory" over Sadr in Basra has got him believing his own press regarding how formidable he is. He has had the space to function because the Sunnis felt more threatened by al-Qaida then by him and because the US bankrolled them. His aggressive actions against them threaten the first and his reluctance to take them into the security apparatus after the US pulls out will go far to undo the effects of the latter.

The fact that he is also ticking off the Kurds over federalism and oil issues suggests that he is either delusional over what he can accomplish once American firepower and money start leaving Iraq or he is banking on Iran to back his plays.

Caroline Kennedy? New York can do better.

Anyone who needs to be told at this point that Caroline Kennedy is interested in being appointed to the Senate to replace Hilary Clinton probably also needs to be introduced to sliced bread and the wheel. Although smart and, presumably, well-versed on the issues (and perhaps, therefore, overqualified for being governor of Alaska), she isn't the best choice, despite the fact that her having been a New York resident since 1964 actually puts her one up on the current occupant.

Her record in any sort of elected, or even appointed, office is very sparse. There is a two-year stint for the New York city Department of Education and that appears to be it. Her work up to this point has otherwise consisted of writing and serving on the boards of various non-profits. She has written two books on civil liberties that have been well-received.

Although she wouldn't necessarily be a bad senator, New York has better qualified people. Andrew Cuomo has executive experience at both the federal (HUD secretary) and state (Atty. General) level. He has run and won a political campaign for himself and worked for his father in politics. Thomas Suozzi has been in New York elective politics for sixteen years and seems to have done a decent job as Nassau County Executive (in addition to having the political chops to break the Republican machine that long ran things there). Byron Brown has served in the state legislature and is currently mayor of Buffalo. I believe there are others who have expressed interest as well.

It is worth mentioning that the person selected would have to run in 2010 to finish the term and again in 2012, when the term expires. However, having even a short stint in the Senate could confer the standard incumbent advantages.

US dynasties not a novelty

With Caroline Kennedy's throwing herself into contention for Hilary Clinton's soon to be vacated Senate seat, I've seen some talk in punditland about whether this is a dynastic politics unsuited to the United States. Chris Matthews asked if this was the Senate or the House of Lords. They spoke of the Bushes and the Kennedys. In fact, political dynasties have a long history in this country.

The Adams are one of the oldest. Both John Adams and his son John Quincy were presidents (albeit not terribly successful ones). JQs son, Charles Francis, Sr. served in the House during Buchanan's administration and his grandson was Hoover's Secretary of the Navy (what is it with this family and unsuccessful administrations!?!?).

President William Howard Taft was followed by a son and grandson who sat in the Senate. The former, Robert Alfonso Taft was a leading isolationist. His namesake grandson was governor of Ohio from 1999-2007.

William Henry Harrison and Benjamin Harrison are, to date, the only grandfather-grandson pair to be President. The Harrison in the middle, John, served two terms in the House.

Hamilton Fish I-IV also held political office. Number One was a senator and Secretary of State while II-IV represented a part of New York in the House for 53 of the 86 years running from 1909-95.

Thomas Kean (of 9/11 Commission fame, or notoriety, depending on taste) was governor of New Jersey from 1982-90. In addition to having a lineage going back to the Continental Congress, he also has a son who serves in the New Jersey state senate. His father served in the House for twenty years while a grandfather and great-uncle served in the Senate.

For one that came back after an interregnum, I give you the Frelinghuysens. The family went back to Dutch days in New Jersey. Frederick was one of the very first U.S. senators. His son and grandson also served there. You have to skip a few generations to a great-grandson, Peter, Jr., who served in the House from 1953-75. His son, Robert, has been there since 1995.

Such families aren't an innovation in American public life. Reasons? Children of office-holders grow up in that culture and develop a taste for it themselves; growing up in the "family business" gives them connections. Families that are prominent enough to get one office holder in can, in some cases, do so for a few generations.

If I were truly a glutton for punishment, I would want to look at the correlation between percentage of Congressman who had fathers, uncles, etc. in the same business and the extent of the voting franchise. Do such "dynasties" correlate with the extent of the franchise? Also, does the same percentage in the Senate change once you go from selection by state legislatures to elections by the people?

Apropos of Chris Matthew's allusion to the House of Lords, reforms undertaken during Tony Blair's time as PM have created a chamber that is overwhelmingly composed of life peers.

Disappointing picks

The BBC News website, among others, has announced that Hilary Clinton is to be nominated as Secretary of State while Robert Gates is to stay on at Defense.

The Clinton choice is bad for a couple of reasons. First, there are so many conflict of interest issues regarding her husband. For example, her serving in that position will require that he limit his activities regarding the William Clinton foundation. I don't entirely trust that serial hair-splitter to keep to that. Her vote for the war should also disqualify her as it was a blunder on a key foreign policy issue. She also never served on the Foreign Relations committee in the Senate and being First Lady isn't a qualification for the job. As I've said in a prior post, Bill Richardson would've been a much better choice. So would career diplomat Susan Rice, who got the UN Ambassador spot.

The Robert Gates nomination is clearly an attempt to reach out to the Republicans and I doubt that it will profit him. There's no reason to believe that they will be any less obstructionist than they were in the last congress. Indeed, the Democratic gains in the last elections should mean that Obama shouldn't have to reach out to the extent of offering them a key Cabinet slot. As Bush's Secretary of Defense, he is tied to the Iraq war. He also bears the taint of the Iran-Contra scandal.

Cassandra time

The CNN/Money website has an article indicating that federal regulators had been getting warnings as early as 2005 about the riskiness of sub-prime mortgages and the exposure of banks to them.

The regulators didn't follow through largely because of the free-market ideology of both the Bush administration and Alan Greenspan and largely because of lobbying by the banks holding these loans, many of which, like WaMu and IndyMac, have since failed.

There would be an element of poetic justice involved in that last bit if there wasn't so much collateral damage.