The Facts About the Electoral College

A lot of confusion, misunderstanding, and down right falsehoods exist about the functionality of the Electoral College. Many seek to replace it with direct elections, even the Founding Fathers were of two minds concerning its creation and usage; Alexandra Hamilton supported it (see Federalist Paper No. 68), while Thomas Jefferson opposed it, stating:

I have ever considered the constitutional mode of election ultimately by the Legislature voting by States as the most dangerous blot in our Constitution, and one which some unlucky chance will some day hit and give us a pope and antipope. - Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to George Hay, 1823.

Herein is an overview on how the Electoral College works straight from those guardians of the American electoral process, the Federal Elections Commission (FEC).

The current workings of the Electoral College are the result of both design and experience. As it now operates:

• Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census).
  
• The political parties (or independent candidates) in each State submit to the State's chief election official a list of individuals pledged to their candidate for president and equal in number to the State's electoral vote. Usually, the major political parties select these individuals either in their State party conventions or through appointment by their State party leaders while third parties and independent candidates merely designate theirs.
  
• Members of Congress and employees of the federal government are prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
  
• After their caucuses and primaries, the major parties nominate their candidates for president and vice president in their national conventions traditionally held in the summer preceding the election. (Third parties and independent candidates follow different procedures according to the individual State laws). The names of the duly nominated candidates are then officially submitted to each State's chief election official so that they might appear on the general election ballot.
  
• On the Tuesday following the first Monday of November in years divisible by four, the people in each State cast their ballots for the party slate of Electors representing their choice for president and vice president (although as a matter of practice, general election ballots normally say "Electors for" each set of candidates rather than list the individual Electors on each slate).
  
• Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. [The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district].
  
• On the Monday following the second Wednesday of December (as established in federal law) each State's Electors meet in their respective State capitals and cast their electoral votes-one for president and one for vice president.
  
• In order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons" of their home State, at least one of their votes must be for a person from outside their State (though this is seldom a problem since the parties have consistently nominated presidential and vice presidential candidates from different States).
  
• The electoral votes are then sealed and transmitted from each State to the President of the Senate who, on the following January 6, opens and reads them before both houses of the Congress.
  
• The candidate for president with the most electoral votes, provided that it is an absolute majority (one over half of the total), is declared president. Similarly, the vice presidential candidate with the absolute majority of electoral votes is declared vice president.
  
• In the event no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, the U.S. House of Representatives (as the chamber closest to the people) selects the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority of the States being required to elect. Similarly, if no one obtains an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate makes the selection from among the top two contenders for that office.
  
• At noon on January 20, the duly elected president and vice president are sworn into office.

More Warnings About Medicare: Insolvency Likely by 2019

And the economic news just keeps getting worse and worse, under the stewardship of Bush Jr. Seems the new Medicare law will not cure all senior health care ills as the Republicans would have us believe. And with each passing day the law once hailed as the savior of seniors and the disabled, is nothing more then a prescription for disaster, one which might leave the Medicare trust fund drained of reserves by 2019, some seven years earlier then expected.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson and in his annual report on the Medicare Trust Fund stated that increased health care cost—which has to include prescription drugs—and decreasing revenues (tax cuts), are the primary motivators behind the revised forecast. He went on to predict that changes to the program called for under the new Medicare law will help slow the growth in spending, however, this predicated on seniors enrolling in managed-care programs. Thompson stated

"When you use the opportunity to allow the free-market system to work, it has the tendency to drive down costs."

Am I missing something or haven’t health care costs risen exponentially over the last 20 years under the free-market system? The free-market has not held down the cost of health care thus far, quite the contrary, as Thompson points out in his own report, health care cost continue to rise at an alarming rate. What makes him, or anyone else think that as seniors and the disabled enroll in private managed-care programs, the cost of health care will even out and eventually decline? What indicators are there in today’s economy that this happy circumstance will come to pass?

Vocal opponents (democrats, independents and other people with common sense) of the newly enacted Medicare law state that there is little evidence the changes called for under the law will slow the growth in health-care costs. It is more likely they contend, that little will change and that as is the trend today, managed care companies will make it more difficult—not less—for seniors and the disabled to see specialists, and continue to line their pockets with the resulting profits.

The Medicare trustees report blamed last years “higher spending” and “lower tax revenues” as primarily responsible for shortening by two years the estimated insolvency date of the trust fund. Wasn’t it Vice President Dick Cheney who said—irresponsibly—that budget deficits were nothing to worry about? Seems they are indeed something to worry about.
The report went on the state that from 1998 to 2002, health care costs spiked 35 percent. By 2002, the last year for which figures are available, such costs accounted for nearly 15 percent of the nation's gross national product, and more than likely accounts for a higher percentage of GNP today. Last year, employer-sponsored health insurance premiums rose by 14 percent the report said. And this year my health insurance premiums rose some 12 percent over last year, and the price I pay for prescription drugs increased again for the fourth straight year. Yes, the free-market is really helping me lower my health care, and prescription drug costs.

Still think the Bush economic plan of tax-rebates and spending is good for the overall fiscal health of the nation? I go on record as saying that the Medicare Law needs to be repealed, and redone right, better still Bush and the Republicans need to go before the U.S. has to declare bankruptcy.

Could 9/11 have been prevented if Bush had paid attention to intelligence?

Well the mud just keeps getting deeper and deeper in front of the White House this election season, and the lies become more and more pervasive and despicable in their scope. Now comes compelling evidence that had the Bush Administration listen to the intelligence being presented, there is a more then even chance that 9/11 could have been prevented.

For anyone that missed it, 60 Minutes held an interview with Richard Clark the Bush Administration's former counter-terrorism coordinator. He stated:

“[f]rankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism," Clarke said during the 60 Minutes interview. "He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

I don’t know about the rest of the American public, but I am growing increasingly weary of the almost daily litany of half-truths and impeachable offenses perpetrated by the Bush Administration swathed in the clothing of leadership. With each passing day it is growing increasingly clear that Bush’s mediocre standing, marginal intelligence, and lack of understanding even the most basic foreign policy doctrines make him unfit to hold the office of President of the United States. Perhaps the American public will now wake up and see that being a good ole boy is nigh enough to be President of the worlds mightiest nation; the job requires intellectual curiosity, wisdom, and more then a passing interest in the world outside Crawford Texas.

Again, I call for impeachment. Anyone care to second the motion?

What Price Unilateral Free Trade?

Question: is the sole purpose of humankind to consume goods? And if so, to what end? How much stuff can you accumulate before it’s too much? How far do you chase prices downward before the interest of societal preservation take hold? How much profit is too much, or is there such an idea in the free-market mindset?

A fellow WatchBLOG editor bade us all to read a paper written by Milton and Rose Friedman The Case for Free Trade, and I am stunned by the near-sidedness of their collective viewpoint. This paper is totally divorced of common sense and the real world understanding, or values that would make it germane to the realities of today.

Nobel laureate or no, the man makes little practical sense; he is after all an economist. The Friedman’s paper leaves aside the fact that people are more then the sum total of their pocketbooks. In a vacuum the Friedman’s stance on free-trade would laudable, but we do not live in a vacuum, we live among other living breathing greedy human beings who last thought is free-trade. Just yesterday the U.S. filed its first claim against China in front of the World Trade Organization (WTO), to protest Chinese governments’ illegal protection of its semi-conductor industry.

The answer one day might be free trade, but that day is not here, and the time is not now. We have our own self-preservation to consider, or should we in the name of free-trade and lowest possible consumer prices disregard that as well?

We could say to the rest of the world: We believe in freedom and intend to practice it. We cannot force you to be free. But we can offer full cooperation on equal terms to all. Our market is open to you without tariffs or other restrictions. Sell here what you can and wish to. Buy whatever you can and wish to. In that way cooperation among individuals can be worldwide and free.—Milton Friedman and Rose Friedman, The Case for Free Trade, Hoover Institute, Hoover Digest 1997 No 4.

Let’s take the Friedman illogical argument to its logical conclusion. We throw open the doors to all nations to freely trade with the U.S. How long would it be before what is left of the U.S. manufacturing sector vanishes in the name of free-trade; 10, 15, 20 years? How many more white collar service jobs would be outsourced to the lowest bidder; 1 million, 2, 5, fifteen million? The U.S. economy would suffer irreversible damage, as one industry after another vanished over the horizon of free-trade: ship building (military and commercial), steel, heavy construction, aircraft manufacturing, tank building, munitions, textiles, semiconductors, appliances, electronics, automobiles, heavy vehicles, farm equipment, die-casting, computers, building materials, paper products, plastics, aluminum, etc., all gone because they would no longer be able to compete on the uneven playing field of unabashed world trade.

Make no mistakes, if the U.S. were to unilaterally lift tariffs the playing field would not suddenly equalize despite our principled(?), foolish and self-destructive stance. The rest of the world is inhabited by folks just as greedy as us; wishing for civility will not make it so; hoping for integrity and fair play, ignorant.

Agriculture would follow the manufacturing and service sectors and soon we would no longer be able to feed ourselves, but depend on other nations for our substance, as consumer flock to lower priced foreign produce. Within say 15 years the agriculture industry would be in shambles as the world dumped its unregulated produce on U.S. shores.

What then would we have to offer the world to trade? We would in effect manufacture and product nothing! Job lose would be staggering, far exceeding what we see today; can you say depression? And as U.S. small businesses (reportedly the largest employers of American workers), fold in droves, or ship jobs overseas and large U.S. business in a bid to survive, either relocate entirely or outsource every job possible, the tax base shrikes, and the standard of living plummets. Massive job lose shrikes the tax base even more, and states are forced to drastically cut social services. And the unthinkable occurs: the federal government defaults on some long term bonds and worst yet teeters on the brink of bankruptcy, the result of too much debt and not enough funds to pay even the interest on the bonds (Treasury Notes). State and federal governments lay off thousands of workers, and shutter whole agencies in a bid to save money exacerbating the already historically high unemployment situation, and worsening the depression.

Homelessness rises to epidemic proportions as Americans lose their homes to foreclosures because they lack jobs, and racked up too much debt in the pursuit of goods, cheap or otherwise. Diseases long thought under control rage out tear through the inner cities, because basic health care is now a pay as you go affair and most Americans no longer can afford it. Across the U.S., counties long the last refuge of the un-insured by-and-large can no longer afford to run county hospitals, and even doctors apply for unemployment. Need I speak to the devastation a shrinking tax base and rising population would have on Medicare and Medicaid?

Crime rises to historical highs as police forces around the country are slashed, and drug use spreads unabashed to all corners of the American society, fueling crime sprees heretofore realized in America. In some large cities, Marshal Law has been declared as the populace becomes increasingly unruly and restless without jobs and hope.

The nation infrastructure crumbles for lack of skilled labor and cash; bridges, roads, rail road tracks all fall into disrepair. Phone service become unreliable, and electrical blackouts common as the utility companies search for skilled labor to effect repairs.

The U.S. military, once the world’s greatest, is a showdown of it former self. Navy ships lie at pier-side because there is no money to buy fuel from foreign supplies who are charging a premium for it, or because they are in desperate need of repair, but there are no U.S. ship yards left to do the work. Pilots (all services) cannot log enough flight hours to remain combat ready for the same reason, and because military aircraft now have to be shipped overseas to be repaired; and hundreds lie dormant awaiting spare parts or service. The military has cut manpower drastically no longer able to afford the personnel to fight a one-front war, let alone three. The U.S. closes bases across the world, leaving power vacuums to be filled by who else, but China and India.

China becomes the predominate economic and military power in the world, and Taiwan finally falls to mainland China. Without the U.S. to counter balance it, China turns is sights on its old nemesis Japan and threatens invasion. Skirmishes are now common along the Chinese Indian boarder, as both flex their newly acquired muscles…need I go on?

Bush Pulls Plug on Manufacturing Czar at Last Moment

Talk about egg on your face (boy it looks good). Just hours before the Bush Administration was set to announce the nomination of its long awaited manufacturing Czar, or the new Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Manufacturing and Services the Kerry Campaign revealed that the nominee, one Anthony F. Raimondo, chairman and chief executive of Behlen Manufacturing Co. of Columbus, NE had himself shipped U.S. jobs overseas to China. It seems Raimondo’s company laid off some 75 U.S. workers in 2002, four months after publicizing plans to build a 3 million dollar 150,000 sq foot factory in northwest China, which employees 180 people.

I wonder if the Bush Administration will be able to find a viable Republican “Captain of Industry” candidate without the stain of manufacturing and or service job loss on their hands? And what exactly with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Manufacturing and Services do anyway? Will the position be mostly symbolic, or will it actually produce a workable blueprint to keep U.S. manufacturing and medium to high wage service jobs in the U.S.? Here’s a hint: start with a workable reform of the U.S. Health Care industry; in case you (Republican’s) haven’t noticed, for the average American it is no longer working. Hello!

The debate for and against Gay marriage in America is undeniably in full swing. From coast to coast, cities and towns are marrying gay and lesbian couple at a brisk rate in deviance of state laws prohibiting such practices. And just last week the city of San Francisco upped the ante considerably when it threw down the preverbal gauntlet and sued the state of California over its laws which prohibit same-sex marriages, stating that they violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clause’s of the California state Constitution, and are thereby discriminatory.

Until recent I was four-square against the idea gay marriage, opting instead to support Civil Unions as a reasonable alternative; see my article post on Dec. 23, 2003 entitled: Toward a More Civil Union; A Case For Civil Unions Between Gay & Lesbian Couples in America. Since that time I have done more research into the subject, and because of the lack of federal protections guaranteeing equal protection under federal law, I have changed my position. And I see no other way for the interests of liberty, equality and fairness before the law (state and federal) to be served short of allowing gay marriage. Because at its base, this (gay marriage rights) is not a theologian debate, subject to the canons of religious doctrine, but one governed by the many states regulation of the institution of marriage.

Marriage as regulated by the many states is a “Civil” Institution, not a religious one, and as such, they (the many states) have to recognize and respect the rights of gay and lesbian couples, as full citizens of this country, to marry and form families. And unless and until the many states can show harm to society or family units from the practice of same-sex marriage, it cannot under our form of governance prevent same. Taken in that context, which the courts are constitutional bound to do, the debate becomes one of Equal Rights and Due Process before the law, which mere Civil Unions do not guarantee because the federal government does not recognize state sanctioned Civil Unions.

For myself I had to ask as well, what harm could same-sex marriages do to the institution of marriage that heterosexual couples haven’t already set in motion? Britney Spears and company should be allowed to make a mockery of the institution, but two loving committed same-sex adults who wish to form a lasting family unit should be denied the right?

Vocal opponents of gay marriages state that marriage is first and foremost a contract entered into for forming families; i.e. raising and protecting children. A little scenario if you will: a gay or lesbian person with a long time partner adopts a child in a state where gays are denied adoption rights as a couple. They raise the child together for ten years, but then the partner that adopted the child dies suddenly, and the child now becomes a ward of the state because the surviving partner has no rights under the law. So, although the remaining partner is in all respects to the child, the child’s parent, the child is placed in foster care at the very time emotional support for the child is paramount. In effect the child loses both parents, and a family unit is broken up. Is this fair; is this just; would this scenario be in the “best interests of the child?” Is it better to raise a child in a single parent household, or consign them the foster care then it is to permit gay and or lesbian couples to adopt and thereby form a loving family unit? If the family is indeed the bedrock of society, and the traditional American family continues to decline, isn’t it better for children to grow up in intact loving families with two parents of the same sex, then not? Isn’t this, in the short and long term better for society? If the institution of heterosexual marriage were such a sparkling example to follow, would there be a need for foster care in the first place?

As for the proposed constitutional amendment that would outlaw same sex marriages: I am vehemently opposed it. How could we even think of placing such wording in a document which is supposed to embody freedom and equality for all before the law? The Republican’s are by-and-large for such an Amendment, but at the same time they yell and screen that government should stay out of people’s lives. They are all for states rights, but not in this instance because state courts with those nasty “activist judges” might actually uphold their state constitutions and rule in favor of gay and lesbian couples. Seems the Republican platform has become the parchment of the religious right and no longer bears any resemblance to notion of equality, liberty and justice under law.

To me there are only two avenues open that make any sense; 1. The federal government should extend those federal laws and regulations concerning marriage to citizens entered into a Civil Union contracts, or; 2. repeal the silly Defense of Marriage act and let the states define marriage within the scope of the respective state constitutions, allowing the Full Faith and Credit clause of the federal Constitution, which states:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved and the Effect thereof. U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 1.

to hold sway, thereby granting the benefit of federal law upon such lawful unions.

Again marriage as governed by the many states is a Civil Institution, not religious one, despite the fact that most marriages are performed by clergy. As such, the state cannot discriminate on the basis of gender or sexual ordination and still remain faithful to the underlying tenets of our Republican form of governance, you know that which states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1.

It Was a Breast – Get Over it Already!

Okay, now that we have all had a good laugh, or cry at Janet Jackson’s expense can we please get back to concerning ourselves with the state of our Union and of the world. You would think that the one minute exposure of a woman’s pasty clothed breast could bring ruination to the nation and forever devastate the minds of our child who most likely suckled at a breast for the first 18-24 months of their lives.

American soldiers continue to die daily mired in a War we never should have started; the Republican led Congress has rack up the biggest national debt in the countries history with no real plan to deflate it; our president has a serious and mounting credibility problem; the U.S. economy continues to shed jobs across collars; health care costs continue to grow at a frightening pace; the debate on the right of Gays to marry is boiling over; we are in the middle of a Presidential race, most likely one of the most important in American history, and yet the nation is abuzz with the sighing of a breast during the “scared family hour.” Please, give me a break!

In a nation where pornography is now a multi-billion dollar business and growing, sex sells everything from cars to tooth paste, scantily clad, buxom women routinely festoon the screens of American television set at all times of the day, it is hysterical, and somewhat twisted that the one second sighing of a woman’s breast during the advertising slugfest called the Super Bowl could cause such a uproar. Can we get back to reality now and get back to governing the nation and tackling the real issues facing the nation?

What, More Men For The Army?

Since the war in Iraq began the Bush Administration with Rumsfeld as its talking head, has insisted that the Army could meet its current obligations without growing the force. Many experts on military tactics and policies state that this was impossible given the level of obligation the U.S. Army is currently committed to. Seems they were right (of course we knew they were). The Bush Administration has quietly announced plans to grow the Army by 30,000 men in the near term.

Speaking before the House Armed Services Committee yesterday the Army Chief of Staff, General Peter Schoomaker stated that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld gave him the okay "to grow the Army by 30,000 people."

But instead of increasing recruitment, or gasp, instituting the draft, the Bush Administration is extending the enlistment of thousands of soldiers due to leave the service. Is there no end to the Bush Administrations duplicity?

Bush Recess Appoints Pickering

On the eve of Martin Luther King’s birthday celebration, President Bush showed once again his distain for Black Americans by appointing to the Federal Bench a man know for his racial intolerance. President Bush using his power under the Constitution to install Judges and others while the Senate is in recess, named controversial Republican Judge Charles Pickering to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans. Pickering’s confirmation has been blocked in the Senate for the last three years.

Democratic Senator Charles E. Schumer said of Pickering on Friday that he is:

"A man who defended cross burning does not deserve elevation to the bench."

He went one to state that

"[a]s the new year began, many of us had hoped the president would adopt a more bipartisan approach in his selection of judges. Instead, this recess appointment is a finger in the eye to all those seeking fairness and bipartisanship in the judicial nominations process."

Is this what Bush means by inclusiveness? Is this what he means by healing? Is this his faith in God at work? Bush has said repeatedly that he wants Black American to embrace the Republican Party, be how can we when the Party, led by Bush, shows a continual disregard for our interests and opinions? Most Black American don’t buy the rhetoric, and are tired of the half-truths and platitudes. I for one share their ire.

Clark Tax Plan Falls Short of the Mark

Retired General Wesley Clark unveiled his version of the great American tax cut today, one that benefits the common man at the expense—literally—of the richest 1% of Americans who will see a tax hike. About time the rich were finally asked to pay their fair share? I say yes, but the plan does not go nearly far enough.

It is well know by Congressman and average American alike, that the Federal tax code is too large, too complicated, and overly burdensome on all (yes even the rich), and needs to be completely overhauled. But it seems, since talk of the flat tax (an idea I support) flared and died, there is little stomach—or vision—in Congress, or the Executive, to radically change the code. So, Congress tweaks around the edges, but never really digs into the meat of the code, leaving Americans to once again slog through tax regulations that are more complicated then the manual to fly the space shuttle.

To Clark’s credit, he does propose finally providing relief to those American families making less then $50,000. And he did issue a challenge to Karl Rove stating:

"If [Republican strategist] Karl Rove is watching today, Karl, I want you to hear me loud and clear: I am going to provide tax cuts to ease the burdens for 31 million American families -- and lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty -- by raising the taxes on 0.1 percent of families -- those who make more than $1,000,000 a year. You don't have to read my lips, I'm saying it"

However, his proposals lack real vision, or transformation and falls far short of common sense tax reform, a package that once and for all equalize the tax burden for all Americans. Say it with me: flat tax, flat tax, flat tax, flat tax…

Towards a More Civil Union

Once again the tide is rising on the question of gay marriage (same sex marriage) in America just in time for the 2004 Presidential election. And despite the recent Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that to gay marriage is not illegal and the network/cable television’s infatuation with everything gay, a recent New York Times/CBS News poll shows that Americans are still not ready to give gay and lesbian couples their day at the altar.

I too, am reticent to say yes to same sex marriage, mindful as I am of the overall good of society. True, due to a number of factors, the traditional American nuclear family is in trouble, but I wonder if society is better served by allowing gays and lesbian to marry. In a society in which individual rights seem to supersede all at the expense of common sense and personal responsibility, it is wise to move with caution. In a country where the push is on to allow pets their day in court, if gay marriage were allowed, would other forms of unions outside the norms of society be espoused?

That being said, I do not agree with the current push for a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage. As a purely social matter, the definition of marriage should be left to the states to regulate as long as they stay within the framework of the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection and due process of law. And this to me is the heart of the matter. How then to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry within the framework of the 14th Amendment without gutting it? In the landmark Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, the court stated:

”The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.”

I cannot condone the denial of due process and equal protection rights for gays and lesbians under the law. As tax payers and citizens of equal standing, same sex partners have a right to the same legal protections their heterosexual counterparts enjoy under marriage “contracts.”

In a now much lauded and maligned case, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled in Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health, that:

“Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support. It brings stability to our society," Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote in the long-awaited ruling. "For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial and social benefits. In return, it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations."

Having said that, the Court stopped short of ordering the state to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, but wisely referred the matter back to the state legislature for future action. Which way the legislature will go—a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as an institution between a man and a woman, or some sort of Civil Union—is the subject of speculation and debate. But the country is watching.

I vote for the Civil Union. I believe the Civil Union to be a reasonable and just alternative to marriage for gays and lesbians. Under Civil Union contracts, gay and lesbian couples could enjoy all of the rights and responsibilities married heterosexual couples enjoy, including hospital visitation rights, death and insurance benefits, survivors benefits, adoption rights, and family leave benefits, just to name a few.

The first state—and to my knowledge, the only state—in the union to institute Civil Union is Vermont. In accordance with 15 V.S.A. (Vermont Statues Annotated) Section 1204:

“Parties to a civil union are given all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under Vermont law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage.”

This compromise seems to me a win-win situation for all involved; we who oppose gay marriage give rest to the question and protect societal interests, and same sex partners receive all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of marriage.

Those who oppose even Civil Unions would just as soon place the Constitution in a lock box and forget the spirit and letter of the document. We as a society cannot go down a road where we circumvent the legal rights of a whole class of people; didn’t we as a country do that once? And what was the result?
I believe strongly in the spirit of the Constitution and its promise of equal protection under law, and I am ever mindful of the words of the Preamble to our federal Constitution:

“We the people in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility. Provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity…”

Those words mean something to me, and should to all of us who sip at the fountain of American freedom. We have a duty and responsibility to each other to ensure that the blessing of liberty and equality are conferred on all, while at the same time maintaining a viable society. And while I oppose same sex marriage as contrary to the tenants of a harmonious society, I do support Civil Unions as a workable alternative, one which guarantees same sex couples the equal protection and due process under law married couples enjoy under law.

Two Party System Fails Us Once Again

It must be the week of the corrupt Republican governor. Fresh on the heels of Connecticut Republican Governor John Rowland’s disclosure of yet more ethics violations, comes the federal indictment of the former Republican governor of my state of Illinois George Ryan, on you guessed it, corruption and ethics violations.

In Connecticut the Democrats, surprise, surprise, seem powerless to remove the scoundrel John Rowland from office. And the scoundrel is unwilling to put the public good above his own bloated ego, and therefore refuses to do the honorable thing, and step down. Meanwhile, here in Illinois, the acrimony between the former governor and the current Democratic governor is taking on a live of its own. Ryan, of course refuses to admit that he did anything wrong, despite the conviction of some 59 of his former inner circle cronies on a vast array corruption and ethics violations, the most egregious of which were perpetrated by his former Chief of Staff, Scott Faywell.

But underlying it all is a further erosion of the public’s trust in the institutions of government upon which we rely to enforce our laws. How much longer before this sort of unabashed, immoral greed, coupled with stupefying lapses in personal integrity, vastly undermines the very foundations of our Republic; or am I naïve enough to believe that the process is not already well underway? And one could argue that this is yet another failing of our two party systems, because it both cases a Republican governor was kowtowed to by Democrat controlled legislatures. Huh?

A Vote For Revolution Seconded

Author’s Note: This article in response to fellow political editor’s David R. Remer’s excellent article entitled “A Vote For Revolution.” It started out as a comment, but in my passion it grew too large for that section.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed—The Declaration of Independence: July 4, 1776

David, I agree 100% with what you have said. Our government no longer works for or represents “We the People.” I used the believe that those who said that “Big Business” was running the county exaggerated, but no more. At no time in American history has the interest of big businesses in America so superceded and infringed on the rights of the people to be heard and governed with vision and the overall good of the nation in mind. Law after law is offered up and sighed into law which has little to do with advancing the cause of our society, and everything to do with the profit of Corporate America at the expense of human beings! I, for one, am tired of living in a nation where the business of the nation is business and unrelenting, immoral, greed; said greed being looked upon by the current ruling majority as somehow good for America and Americans!

The two party system, which used to work when governed by principle and a drive to do public good, is no longer working. Political rhetoric is all too often composed of empty promises and vision that rarely sees beyond the confines of capital hill and its plethora of lobbyist fat with corporate money. In the end, the only interests that are served are those of the rich, whose sole concern is increasing their wealth beyond imagining, or need. Meanwhile, “We the People” continue to suffer the inadequacies of government—at all levels—that is increasing corrupt and shot through with mind numbing greed. No public official seems to be able to actually work for the public good any more; it is all about feeding at the trough of public taxes. It is, in a word disheartening.

The current Republican administration would have us regress back to the turn of the last century where the robber barons delighted in their ill-gained wealth, won wholly on the backs working class Americans. Is that where we want to go as a nation? Are we content to live in a nation where the middle class is swept away in an orgy of corporate greed, leaving only the uber rich and uber poor? What of our standard of living, our economic status? Wake up America….wake up, before revolution is the only course of action left to those who value democracy.

We are no longer a nation of vision, anchored by the foundation of principles upon which the country was founded. We hold ourselves up as shining examples of democracy in action, a Utopia where the rule of law is sacrosanct, and yet our government continues to hold men in Cuba and in this country in absentia, denying them their day I court. The President, without judicial review can label any American an “enemy combatant” and have said person carted away to who knows where and deny him (or her) their rights under the Constitution. A high ranking Bush Administration office even went so far as to state that the Judiciary has no sway over the executive branch in times of War. Really, since when? Where is it written, or even implied that the Constitution should be set aside in times of war, real or implied?

We arrogantly refuse to join international bodies whose sole objective it is to advance the cause of civilized discourse among nations, and the protection of the innocent or those too young or weak to protect themselves. We subordinate those interests to those of profit and other meaningless concerns that further separate us from the world to our unending peril. We start unjustified wars based on lies, and half-truths, and seek to push our flawed agenda on to other societies; welcome to the world of Imperialist America.

I fear for America future, and the partisan bitterness current un-hatching across state houses across the nation, in the nation capitol, only heightens that fear. I often wonder what will be left of America for my daughters to inherit; our society, our way of life is falling into disrepair. Institution after institution is being ripped apart by corruption, outright stupidity, greed and a growing pension toward immoral behavior.

“We The People” are no longer united in search of a common purpose, “A More Perfect Union.” We are no longer one nation, and promoting the “General Welfare” of the people is a goal long since abandoned. We are fractured, unwilling or unable to compromise for the good of the nation on even the simplest of issues. The two party political system only mirrors American society as it slides into mediocrity, no longer viable, no longer potent, no longer a force for the betterment of society, or the world, but a hindrance to same. The America Dream is dying, and with it, the America the world had grown to respect, and looked to for leadership. If pressed, I would maintain that it is past time for revolution.

The Energy Bill Filibuster is On

Who says the Democratic Party is dead and dying? Certainly not the Republicans in Senate and certainly not the White House who were all but gloating about passage of the much ballyhooed Energy Bill, before it cleared the Senate floor. Now it appears as thought the ill-conceived bill might be dead as the Democrats launch a filibuster. Should Americans rejoice at its passing? Is there any reason to decry the death of a bill that does nothing to address the cause of American energy independence now, or in the foreseeable future?

Better in my estimation to let the Energy Bill die, then to sigh into law a bill that on its face is bad for America.

In the latest round of partisan politics, in which Senate Republicans are engaged in a 30-hour debate about the state of the Bush Administration’s judicial nominees, are the Republicans crying wolf when in fact there is none to be found? What is the issue one might ask? It is this: out of a total of 172 judicial nominees for vacant Federal Judicial benches put before the Senate so far, 168—some 98%, have been passed by the full Senate while, 4—a mere 2% have been held up by Democrats.

In a sound bite today Bush called this:

”ugly politics," and further stated that, "[i]t's wrong and it's shameful, and it's hurting the system."

How is this ”ugly politics,” and how is it “hurting the system?" The last time I read it, the Constitution still gives the Senate the right to advise and consent on Federal judicial appointments. I do not believe the wording has been changed to advise and rubberstamp. Does Bush, and as an extension, Senate Republicans, awash in the glow of their arrogance believe that they should (be entitled) get everything they wish for? Have they forgotten how our government operates? Instead of compromising and finding more mainstream candidates—you know jurists that might represent a fair majority of the American people—the Bush Administration seems bent on packing the court with neo-conservative, strict Constitutionalists. Knowing what I know about their dogma and believes, that is not a road this Moderate wants to travel, how about you?

Is Gore Spoiling For Round Two?

Is Al Gore spoiling for a re-match with his nemesis George W. Bush? In a speech given over the weekend, to an audience of about 2500 Gore, spoke to members of two liberal advocacy groups: the American Constitution Society and Moveon.org, and based on the voracity of his presentation, it sure sounded like he was ready to fight.

Gore stated: "President Bush has stretched this new practical imperative way beyond what is healthy for our democracy," and "[t]hey have taken us much farther down the road toward an intrusive, Big Brother-style government -- toward the dangers prophesied by George Orwell in his book '1984' -- than anyone ever thought would be possible in the United States of America,"

Is Gore building a case whereby he would enter the race for the 2004 democratic nomination as the savoir of American Principles. The man on the White charger destined to save American democracy from the neo-conservative Republican hoards? Or perhaps he’ll decide to run as an Independent.

At the end of his speech Gore asked the crowd, "[s]o what should be done?" and the audience shouted "Run Al, Run," which no doubt he wanted to hear. There is also little doubt that if Gore did to decide to run as a democrat he would be the immediate front runner. And if he ran as in independent, his popular support would be more then any Independent candidate has heretofore enjoyed.

I join the crowd shouting Run Al Run! Could one imagine a Gore/McCain ticket?

Green Party Candidate Matt Gonzalez vies for San Francisco’s Top Slot

San Francisco is in flux, Willie Brown is out, the victim of term limits and the mayor’s office is up for grabs. The election, which was held yesterday ended with millionaire entrepreneur and city Supervisor Gavin Newsom on top, but not with a high enough margin to win the mayors office outright. A run off election will be held next month to decide the race and fellow city Supervisor Matt Gonzalez the highest ranking Green Party member to hold office in the city could very well become San Francisco’s next mayor. Who is Matt Gonzalez the man who be mayor of the California city that is arguably America’s most liberal? Follow the link gentle reader, follow the links.

* Chinese immigrants, small businesses back Gonzalez

* In S.F., it's a race to be second
Gonzalez, Leal, Alioto vie to face Newsom

Continuing Security Issues in Iraq Hamper Bush Administration Mission

The Bush Administration claims that the latest attacks in Baghdad are a sign of desperation by those opposed to the U.S. led occupation of Iraq. Huh? What crystal ball is he looking into? Bush stated yesterday that:

"The more successful we are on the ground, the more these killers will react. The more progress we make on the ground, the more free the Iraqis become, the more electricity is available, the more jobs are available, the more kids that are going to school, the more desperate these killers become, because they can't stand the thought of a free society."

Is the measure of our success in Iraq now to be gauged by how many lights are on, how many schools are open, and how many policeman are created? I would argue that the attackers have grown even more brazen in their attacks because we are failing in Iraq, not succeeding. More and more American soldiers are dying every week in Iraq denoting a deteriorating security situation which can only get worse, because despite protestations to the contrary by Bush Administration officials there are not enough “boots” on the ground to carry out the mission.

Oil fire continue to burn as a result of sabotage; sizable former Iraqi Army ammunition dumps are left unguarded, in effect arming the very men we seek to guard against; borders are left largely unguarded and foreign fighter are infiltrating Iraq and killing American soldiers; dozens of attacks are carried out daily, the result of which is an erosion in the Iraqi people confidence in American competence and leadership.

Without even basic security how can meaningful progress be made toward a more stable and democratic Iraq?

Florida Theatrics Points to Future Erosion in the American Political System

How bad has the state of political discourse gotten in these United States? Look no further then the state of Florida for the answer wherein a Republican governor and Republican led Legislature have—contrary to the stated platform of the Republican Party which decries government interference in our lives—drafted and signed into a law a bill designed to effect just one person! I am referring of course to the heartbreaking case of Terri Schiavo.

It is bad enough that the Florida legislature over-stepped its authority in drafting the law, and the governor ill-used his office by signing the law, but in doing so they subverted our democratic process by sidelining the third branch of government, the judicial. And they did so not to save a life, but to garner the votes of the people from the religious right who support them in this foolishness!

Said noted and highly regarded Harvard law Professor Laurence Tribe of the goings on:

"I've never seen a case in which the state legislature treats someone's life as a political football in quite the way this is being done."

How sad a happenstance that American politicians have started to resort to Third World shenanigan and abuse of power and process in order to obtain and stay in office. Shame on the Florida Legislature and shame of governor Bush!