Richardson, a strawberry farmer and pro-life advocate, wants to charge with murder both doctors who perform abortions and the women who receive them. Recently, he legally changed his middle name to Pro-Life in order to showcase his position on abortion. Because Pro-Life is now his official, legal middle name, the state of Idaho must allow it to appear on the ballot.

But Richardson doesn’t think he is going to win. According to the article in the Idaho Statesman, Richardson, running as an independent, hopes to receive 5% of the vote. His opponents are Lt. Governor Jim Risch (R), who is pro-life, and Larry LaRocco (R),  who is pro-choice.

What do you think? Although it is part of Richardson’s name, is having “Pro-Life” on the ballot fair, or does it give him an unfair advantag?

Post from: EveryJoe

Marvin Pro-Life Richardson – That’s not a nickname

Although a federal district court upheld the law in December, an appeals court overturned the lower court’s verdict yesterday. The appellate court ruled that New York’s statute pre-empted a federal law that provides for the uniform regulation of the airline industry.

Like many major court decisions, this one wasn’t about the substance of the law at issue. The appellate court certainly doesn’t like delayed flights, and doesn’t want passengers to have to sit for hours without water or bathrooms. The problem was that, by passing this law, the state of New York was trying to regulate something that, according to the appellate court, only the Congress has the power to control. Congress has passed on its power to the Federal Aviation Administration, allowing it to create uniform national regulations for the airline industry. As the court said, if each individual state could pass its own specific laws to regulate airlines:

“…another state could be free to enact a law prohibiting the service of soda on flights departing from its airports, while another could require allergen-free food options on its outbound flights, unraveling the centralized federal framework for air travel.”

So the court didn’t have a problem with a law protecting passengers – it has a problem with an individual state usurping federal interstate commerce power.

The State of New York can still appeal this case to the US Supreme Court. If they do, and the Court hears the case, it will have to decide between two competing interpretations of the case. The State of New York considers this an application of its police power to regulate for the “health, morals, safety, and general welfare” of its people, but the airline industry is arguing that this case is actually about a state trying to infringe on the Congress’ power to create uniform national rules for interstate industries.

Some member of Congress are actually trying to pass a federal law that would be similar to New York’s. That’s a great election-year move, but until such a law passes, passengers may be forced to “sit back, relax, and enjoy” hours of sitting on the taxiway without food, water, or restrooms.

Post from: EveryJoe

Update: Court strikes down New York’s airline passenger rights law

Let’s take a look at Clinton’s lead with various groups of likely voters:

• Women – 57% for Clinton, 29% for Obama
• Union Members – 67% for Clinton, 26% for Obama
• Evangelicals – 45% to 38%
• Whites – 57% to 29%
• Those over age 55 – 55% to 29%

The only demographic in which Obama leads is non-whites, where he polls at 76%, compared to Clinton’s 12%.

Clinton also leads among voters who are primarily concerned with major issues:

• She leads by 15% among voters who say they are concerned primarily with the economy.
• Among those who are voting based on health care issues, Clinton leads by 19 points.
• Likely voters who rate leadership as the most important issue favor Clinton by 30%.
• Those who are thinking mostly about electability prefer Clinton by 15 points.

But the Pennsylvania primary is still a couple weeks away, and Obama has plenty of time to make up these deficits. Until now, Clinton has spent nearly twice as much time in Pennsylvania as has Obama, and the tough week Obama had on racial issues has probably pulled him down for the moment. Two weeks is a huge amount of time in this campaign, and plenty can happen between now and the Pennsylvania primary to make the contest much closer than it looks right now.

So what does Obama have to do? At least two things:

1. He and his most prominent supporters have to spend most of the next two weeks in the state. Obama is polling very well in Philadelphia, but he needs to expand his appeal out into the suburbs and other urban areas of the state. Given Pennsylvania’s relatively low Hispanic population, Bill Richardson will be of only limited use to him here.
2. He has to advertise aggressively. Neither he nor Clinton has been advertising on television much until just recently, and Obama needs to put his fundraising advantage to work by saturating the airwaves with messages of economic improvements that will appeal to Pennsylvania voters.

What else does Obama have to do to beat Clinton in Pennsylvania? Share your winning strategies with us!

Post from: EveryJoe

In Pennsylvania, bad news for Obama is good news for Clinton

People who do not comply the fasten seat belt sign!

You know what I’m talking about. It’s that 5% of the traveling public that seems to be in complete ignorance of both rows of illuminated signs and repeated crew members instructions. That elite group of travelers who do not feel subject to the laws of the United States of physics itself. Was during massive turbulence the best time to get a new DVD out of the overhead bin? Did that guy really have to wait until final approach to go to the bathroom? And don’t even get me started on the people who loudly unhook their seat belts the moment the wheels hit the runway. The plane is still speeding along at an incredible speed, and just how horrible is it to simply keep a thin strip of nylon clasped across your hips for another few minutes? You’d think these people were clamped inside an iron maiden.

But this isn’t the place to indulge in too much simple complaint-mongering. I’m here to talk about federal regulations 121.317 and 121.311. These are the the regulations to which the head flight attendant is referring when s/he says something like “federal regulations require passengers to comply with all posted placards and signs.” She isn’t kidding! It’s right there in the Code of Federal Regulations:

121.317 (b): …the “Fasten Seat Belt” sign shall be turned on during any movement on the surface, for each takeoff, for each landing, and at any other time considered necessary by the pilot in command.

121.317 (f): Each passenger required by §121.311(b) to occupy a seat or berth shall fasten his or her safety belt about him or her and keep it fastened while the “Fasten Seat Belt” sign is lighted.

121.311 (b): Except as provided in this paragraph, each person on board an airplane operated under this part shall occupy an approved seat or berth with a separate safety belt properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing. A safety belt provided for the occupant of a seat may not be used by more than one person who has reached his or her second birthday.

So there we have it, folks. These aren’t suggestions. Federal regulations require passengers wear their seat belts:

• During taxiing, takeoff, and landing.
• At any other time that the “Fasten Seat Belt” sign is illuminated.

So what happens if you don’t do it? Well, for starters, you are making the cabin unsafe for both yourself and everyone around you. But if you don’t care about that, consider that you can be sued in civil court and subject to a fine. That doesn’t happen often, but every year a few uncooperative air travelers find out the hard way that federal regulations carry the force of law. You can’t go to jail for refusing to put on your seatbelt, but you can find yourself stuck with a big fine, and you may even be banned from travel on that airline. So buckle up!

Post from: EveryJoe

Business Travelers, All Travelers – Buckle Up!

Recently, the underlying identity politics of the race between an African-American and a woman began to boil over. Last week, Geraldine Ferraro, an advisor to the Clinton campaign, made remarks widely interpreted as racially insensitive; soon after, racially inflammatory comments by Obama’s friend and former minister began making the rounds on the political talk shows and the Internet. Some suspicious Obama supporters notwithstanding, it seems unlikely that this was coordinated by the Clinton campaign. Even so, the new overt focus on race began hurting the Obama campaign.

That’s when Obama decided to make a major speech on race at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia. This speech was a major risk – as a black candidate talking about race, Obama was in danger of alienating both white and Hispanic voters (that’s Anglo and Hispanic if you live in Texas). That’s a danger at any time, but this year, when many pundits are predicting that white males will break for McCain in the home stretch, and Hispanics appear friendlier to Clinton, the risk is especially great.

But Obama’s speech did just what it needed to. I’m not talking about whether I agree with the sentiments he expressed, or any other issue of my own voting preferences. I’m just saying that as a piece of political campaign strategy, this speech was spot-on.

In today’s speech, Obama moved successfully past racial divisions, folding them into the tried-and-true narrative of a multi-ethnic candidate and a multi-ethnic country with more common interests than divisions. In the most dangerous section of the speech, Obama spoke about whites who feel discriminated against because of affirmative action, outsourcing, and immigration. The prospect of a black candidate lecturing whites on discrimination must have terrified some of Obama’s advisors, but by validating these sentiments he managed to craft a message of unity and hope, two themes that have been integral to his strategy throughout this campaign.

Particularly important was Obama’s claim that we must engage in real, productive racial dialogue. Change through unity; justice for all. These themes have been winners for Obama from day one, and his speech today only strengthened and broadened these messages to an adult white voting demographic in which, some polls indicate, Obama’s support has softened.

Of course, this speech won’t affect some voters. They’ll continue to focus on small clips of Obama’s minister’s speeches, but those who obsess about one religious figure’s comments weren’t going to vote for Obama, anyway. Obama’s real audience today was working-class, undecided, white Democrats – the voters Obama needs to build victory in the closed Pennsylvania Democratic primary in April. If Obama can continue to focus on this message of change through unity, of recognizing but transcending the racial divide, he’ll get those votes.

Post from: EveryJoe

Obama’s Speech on Race

In their recent article, “Beyond Negativity: The Effects of Incivility on the Electorate,” which appeared in the January 2007 issue of the American Journal of Political Science, there is “no evidence that even the most despised of candidate messages – negative, uncivil, trait-based messages – are harmful to the democratic engagement of the polity” (12). In fact, there is even some evidence that incivility may generate a modest increase voter turnout.

To reach this conclusion, Brooks and Greer conducted an experiment. They exposed a national random sample of individuals to a series of generic campaign messages that were designed along three dimensions: positive/negative, issue-focus/trait-focus, civil negative/uncivil negative. (Trait-focus means that the message addressed some personal characteristic of the opponent, rather than one of his campaign issues.) Brooks and Greer than asked their research subjects a series of questions designed to uncover their attitudes to these campaign messages. The results were clear and consistent. Although subjects felt the least positive about messages that were perceived as “negative, uncivil, [and] trait-based,” they were not subjects’ political trust or message recall, and they seem to have slightly increased subjects’ interest in politics and intent to vote.

I agree with Brooks and Greer that this is good news. In a highly polarized, uncivil political environment, it is comforting to know that the electorate probably won’t be turned off by the harsh exchanges that they seem to see whenever they turn on the television. This doesn’t necessarily mean that we should support nasty personal attacks, but it does mean that when they happen, the electorate can shrug them off and stay interested in the democratic process.

Post from: EveryJoe

The Effects of Uncivil Debate on Voters

The Alaskan Independence Party is basically a libertarian party with Alaska-specific concerns. Among the party’s primary goals are:

1. A statewide referendum on statehood status, during which the party will support some form of independence for Alaska. This may not necessarily be complete secession from the US, but will definitely involve far greater independence for Alaska than current interpretations of the US Constitution allow.
2. A literal interpretation of the US and Alaska Constitutions. Interestingly, this may conflict with the party’s position on the 2nd Amendment. There are two types of Constitutional Literalists – Historical and Contemporary. Historical Literalists consider only late eighteenth-century meaning of the words in the Constitution – what the words meant when they were written. Contemporary Literalists consider only the meaning of the words as they are used today. The Alaskan Independence Party “supports the right of the individual to keep and bear arms,” but of course the 2nd Amendment does not say anything about individuals. Instead, it discusses “militias.” The eighteenth-century meaning of the word “militia” was men between the ages of 17 and 45 who are physically fit for military duty. Today’s meaning of the word militia most directly refers to the National Guard. Neither of these literal meanings of “militia” lends itself to an individual right to bear arms.
3. A return of all federally-owned lands in Alaska to Alaskan control.
4. The support of logging, mining, and other activities that use Alaska’s environment to support the state’s economy.
5. The abolition of all property taxes.
6. “Jobs for Alaskans…first! …Alaskans should have first crack at jobs here. We should not have to compete with people who do not live or love Alaska like we do.” There is at least one problem here. In the US Supreme Court case of Hicklin v. Orbeck (1978), the Court ruled that an Alaska law giving preference to Alaskans for jobs in the state’s oil and gas industry violated Article 4’s Privileges and Immunities Clause, which states that “the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.”

The party hit a high point in 1990-1994, when Walter Hickel, a party member, served as the state’s governor. Hickel opposed outright independence for Alaska, but did support some of the party’s other goals. He left the Alaskan Independence Party and rejoined the Republicans in 1994.

The party has not yet endorsed a candidate for president this year, but check back again after their convention this weekend. They may have made a choice!

Post from: EveryJoe

Third Party Thursday Presents – The Alaskan Independence Party

ALTON BROWN FOR PRESIDENT

That’s right – the Food Network’s Alton Brown (AB) should run for President. Before you scoff at the idea, let’s take a look at some of his strengths as a candidate:

1. He has strong name recognition – at least as good as Ralph Nader’s among younger voters.
2. He can claim strong connections to the people of three major regions (and their delicious electoral votes): he was born in Los Angeles, went to college at the University of Georgia and culinary school at the New England Culinary Institute, and now lives in Georgia. This gives him the strongest California connection of any major candidate, and given a) his Southern style of cooking; b) his residence in GA; c) his religion (see below); and d) Southern evangelicals’ discomfort with John McCain, AB might actually be able to contest the South.
3. As a member of the evangelical Johnson Ferry Baptist Church, he has strong religious credentials that could help him carry the evangelical vote nationwide.
4. He is married, has one daughter, a dog, and a lizard. Impeccable family credentials. In fact, my extensive research indicates that no previous high-profile presidential candidate has owned a lizard. Reptile-owners may be an as yet untapped demographic, and I’m willing to be they tend to be independents.
5. His personality has something for every major demographic: For the male vote, is a motorcycle aficionado and he likes grilling; for the soft-issue family values voter, he’s a cook, so he can focus on his dedication to traditional family issues; women will like that he works with his wife, who is involved in the production of Good Eats; patriotic voters will enjoy that his favorite food is the cheeseburger; for voters concerned about international affairs, well, he has as much international experience as Clinton or Obama, and more management experience than either.
6. Based on Feasting on Asphalt 1 and 2, he is capable of keeping up an intense campaign schedule, and can sit down with a wide range of voters, from alligator farmers in rural Louisiana to police officers in California.
7. As a popularizer chemistry and other sciences, he is likely to be popular with the growing scientific lobby, which has spent the last eight years frantically protesting the Bush administration’s tenuous relationship with science.
8. Who do I want answering the red phone at 3:00 AM? The guy who can calmly juggle volumes of obscure information while managing to follow the frenetic pace of an Iron Chef, his challenger, and their buzzing minions of sous chefs. AB’s a guy who won’t panic under the pressure. And after he fires the missiles, he’ll make sandwiches for the Joint Chiefs.

But no candidate is perfect. Among AB’s potential weaknesses:

1. In a published interview, he said: “Actually, I owe a great majority of anything I’ve done to a Frenchman.”
2. On one episode of Good Eats, he said that grits and polenta are basically the same thing. Although that’s true, you’re not supposed to say it. It’s like saying that today’s college graduate are never going to see a penny from Social Security – it’s true, but you just don’t say it. (On the other hand, this tactic could give McCain’s “Straight Talk Express” a run for its money.)
3. He has said that he doesn’t like NY cheesecake, which could hurt him in the Empire State. But he did do a whole show on corned beef, so that might balance it out. Either way, he is unlikely to win NY if Clinton gets the Democratic nomination.

So there we have it. Alton Brown for President. The only question is – who would make a good running-mate?

Post from: EveryJoe

Alton Brown for President (An Interlude)

In this essay, Searle contends that the US Constitution does NOT grant the US President the sole choice of extending or canceling diplomatic recognition of foreign states. He asks “why should we assume that the power to make the ultimate form of treaty (diplomatic recognition) should rest solely in the hands of the President?” He goes on to ask “[i]f the power to grant diplomatic recognition rests solely with the President, does that mean if President McCain wakes up on the wrong side of bed he can unilaterally decide to withdraw diplomatic recognition from (say) France? This is way too much power for one man to have, and I am confident that our Constitution says so.”

I thank Mr. Searle for bringing up this point, as it gives me an excuse to delve a bit more deeply into the matter. Although the propensity of legal scholarship and historical practice support my claim that the President does have the sole power of extending or canceling diplomatic recognition, Mr. Searle’s contention is worthy of more detailed treatment.

Obviously, this isn’t the place for an exhaustive exploration of all the legal scholarship and historical practice supporting the standard interpretation of Article 2, Section 3, which states that the President “shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers.” Instead, I shall simply note several major points in favor of this ubiquitous interpretation:

1. The word “shall” in “shall receive ambassadors…” does not require the President to receive anyone who claims to be an ambassador. It simply gives the President the discretion to decide. The President decides who is and is not an ambassador – ambassadors he receives, and others he does not. So when, for instance, the Taliban sent a representative to Washington, the President decided that that person was not an ambassador. Only legitimate governments can send ambassadors, and by refusing to consider the Taliban representative an ambassador, the President refused diplomatic recognition to his government. The President shall receive ambassadors, but not everyone who shows up at the President’s door is an ambassador – he decides who does and does not meet that standard.
2. As early as 1793, it was widely recognized that the President has the sole power to extend diplomatic recognition. That year, Edmond Genet arrived in the US from France. He presented his diplomatic credentials, addressed to the US Congress. President Washington would not receive Genet until he returned with diplomatic credentials addressed to the President. Washington’s Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, informed Genet that on through the President can “foreign nations or their agents … learn what is or has been the will of the” United States. Washington had the sole power to decide whether or not to receive Genet, and he chose not to
3. That same year James Madison criticized Washington, but he still supported the notion that the President has sole discretion concerning diplomatic recognition. Madison wrote that the President is “most proper for the ceremony of admitting public ministers, of examining their credentials, and of authenticating their title to the privileges annexed to their character by the law of nations.” Notice in particular the last clause of this quote, in which Madison mentions “authenticating.” He believed that the President not only had the sole power of diplomatic recognition, but that he also authenticates – that is, judges – the true status of the foreign representative. The President has a choice.
4. Again in 1793, Alexander Hamilton (under the pseudonym ‘Pacificus’) wrote: “The right of the executive [that is, the President] to receive ambassadors and other public ministers… This right includes that of judging, in the case of a revolution of government in a foreign country, whether the new rulers are competent organs of the national will, and ought to be recognized, or not… This power…is an important instance of the right of the executive, to decide upon the obligations of the country with regard to foreign nations.” This may be the clearest statement regarding diplomatic recognition during the Founding period – through his power to receive foreign ambassadors, the President has the sole power to judge the status of foreign governments.
5. In 1798, the US Congress passed the Logan Act (which is still officially on the books). This law made it illegal for any private US citizen to engage in diplomatic negotiations with a foreign government. According to its official description, this law was “an Act to prevent usurpation of Executive functions.” In this description, the US Congress itself recognized that the Chief Executive (the President) has the sole power to engage in diplomacy with foreign governments. Inasmuch as the recognition of foreign states is a fundamental diplomatic function, the Congress understood that the President alone has this power.
6. In 1799, John Marshall, then a member of the House, stated that “the President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations.” Of course, Marshall went on to become the most influential Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. But the important point here is that, because the President is the US’s “sole representative with foreign nations,” only the President has the right to decide which countries to recognize.
7. Rather than enumerate and elaborate each instance of diplomatic recognition during the nineteenth century, I’ll simply quote from the venerable John Bassett Moore, whose 1906 Digest is an authoritative source on that period’s diplomatic history. He wrote: “In every case, as it appears, of a new government… the question of recognition was determined solely by the Executive. In the case of the Spanish-American republics, of Texas, of Hayti, and of Liberia, the President … invoked the judgment and cooperation of Congress… In numerous other cases, the recognition was given by the Executive solely on his own responsibility.” Moore’s extensive study had yielded the conclusion that although in several cases the President had chosen to ask Congress’s advice, this advice was neither required not binding. On most occasions, the President neither sought nor received it.
8. In 1897, during a national debate regarding the recognition of Cuba, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee carefully studied the President’s power to receive foreign ambassadors. Their study concluded that: “The recognition of independence … is distinctly a diplomatic matter. Diplomatic relations with a new power are properly, and customarily inaugurated … through an envoy sent for the purpose. The reception of this envoy … is the act of the President alone… Nor can the legislative branch of the Government hold any communications with foreign nations. The executive branch is the sole mouthpiece of the nation in communication with foreign sovereignties.” I couldn’t have said it better myself. The President is the only officer who can recognize the independence of a foreign state.
9. In 1913, President Wilson refused to extend diplomatic recognition to Huerta’s government in Mexico. He also refused recognition to the Soviet Union. Similarly, Hoover refused recognition to the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo in 1932, and Truman refused the Communist government in China. Of course, President Carter officially canceled the US’s diplomatic recognition of Taiwan and extended it to the People’s Republic of China, completing a course of action set in motion by Nixon’s visit to the PRC in 1972. The US Supreme Court case of Goldwater v. Carter (1979), which arose from this episode, did not touch on the question of the President’s power to cancel diplomatic recognition.

These are just 9 quick vignettes that serve to illustrate that the preponderance of scholarship and practice support the notion that the President has the sole authority to chose which foreign governments and states will receive diplomatic recognition by the United States. Like any text, the US Constitution is open to interpretation, and on matters of interpretation reasonable people may disagree. But the weight of the evidence indicates that Mr. Searle’s interpretation of Article 2, Section 3 has not been dominant in US history.

Post from: EveryJoe

Diplomatic Recognition of Kosovo Revisited – A Reply to Steven Searle

Votes Required to Win = 270

Clinton = 263

Obama = 193

Votes Remaining =  82

Difference Between Clinton and Obama =  70

So if the Electoral College were voting today between Clinton and Obama, neither candidate would have a majority. In that case, the president is chosen by the House of Representatives (which has only happened once, by the way).  Although Clinton is in the lead, Obama is only 70 votes behind. With 82 Electoral Votes as yet unassigned, he would still have a chance of making up the difference.

Post from: EveryJoe

The Electoral College Count