Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Yeah, but do you not get her catalog? Practically every project she does on the show or in the magazine is associated with a $59 kit that will allow you to do the same thing to the flea market chair/bough of cedar/what-have-you. She does it the hard way on the show, and then sells you the three-easy-step kit. Her entire show is a friggin' infomercial for her catalog.

The catalog comes to my house but I toss it because I have no interest in her products so I haven't seen the kits. I am mostly familar with her shows and her magazine, which suck IMHO.

[Not Me]

Thought this was interesting:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20040305.html

The Constitutional Provision that Requires Enforcement Until a Court Says Otherwise

Thus, the only imaginable defense for Mayor Newsom's actions is his belief that these statutes violate the California Constitution. And that, indeed, has been his defense - that the oath he swore to uphold the California Constitution when he took office permits (indeed, perhaps compels) him to disregard state statutes that conflict with the highest of California's laws.

The problem for Mayor Newsom is a specific provision of the California Constitution. Article III, section 3.5 of the California Constitution says that an "administrative agency has no power to refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of its being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional."

In other words, the California Constitution itself says that when an agency thinks that a statute violates the Constitution, the agency should continue to obey the statute until appellate courts have resolved the matter. Section 3.5 thus sets up an orderly process to prevent each agency from going its own way and disregarding the will of the legislature in the name of constitutional conscience.

Section 3.5 is the provision the Attorney General relied on heavily in making his request for an immediate cease-and-desist order, and to my mind, his argument is quite forceful. While I will of course be interested in seeing what Mayor Newsom's legal team says in the response it files today, my sense is that under Section 3.5, even if the Mayor is right in thinking that state statutes violate the Constitution, he was acting illegally in disregarding state statutes until the invalidity of those statutes had been made clear by the appellate courts.

Is San Francisco an "Administrative Agency" Within the Provision's Meaning?

The only real question concerning the applicability of section 3.5 is whether San Francisco is an "administrative agency" within its meaning. I think it has to be, for a few reasons.

First, the City/County of San Francisco is, in the marriage license-granting context, acting as a County, not as a local City. It is the County clerk who issues the licenses, and the state Constitution elsewhere defines Counties as "legal subdivisions of the state." As one prominent treatise on the California Constitution notes, counties "serve as regional agencies and instrumentalities of some state-level functions and are thus treated as legal and operational subdivisions of the state government itself."

(The fact that San Francisco is both a City and a County should not confuse us here - where, as here, San Francisco acts as a County, it is acting on behalf of the State, and is a state "administrative agency" for these purposes.)

Taking a step back, it only makes sense to view marriage-license-granting as a state function. The licenses each county grants are valid not just in that county, but rather throughout the state (and perhaps in other states as well -- depending on how the Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause is interpreted, and how other states' courts choose to rule on public policy exemptions to recognition of out-of-state marriages?).

It is true that cities in California enjoy some protection under the California Constitution to decide for themselves, free from state control, some matters. But the California Constitution limits these local autonomy realms explicitly to "municipal affairs." Municipal affairs may include such things as setting salaries for city employees, contracting for city construction projects, taxing local residents, and the like. But they certainly don't include administering a statewide scheme for marriage licenses.

We can see that clearly if we ask the following question: what if Mayor Newsom's objections to state statutes concerning marriage were based not on a perceived conflict with the California Constitution, but rather only on policy differences? That is, what if Mayor Newsom thought, for example, that persons who are 16 years old should be allowed to marry (in violation of state law), but didn't ground his argument in a reading of state constitutional principles?

We would never think that the City of San Francisco can define marriage differently from the State under its local home rule powers, in the way it can decide how to tax its municipal residents or pay its local employees. Marriage is a statewide concern, and its administration should be subject to an orderly, statewide process.

Nor does anything change if Mayor Newsom says, as his lawyers have begun to, that he thinks state statutes prohibiting same-sex marriage might violate the federal, as well as the state, constitution. In essence, Newsom's lawyers argue that section 3.5 would violate the notion of federal constitutional supremacy if it were invoked to force a state official to do something he believed violated federal law.

I think not. TAlthough there might be a problem if a state constitution directed a state official to do something that any reasonable person would know violates federal law. But , I see no problem with a provision, like section 3.5, which merely says that where reasonable minds can differ about the validity of state statutes, such statutes should be administered until appellate courts make their invalidity reasonably clear.

For these reasons, San Francisco should have waited for an appeals court decision in its favor, before beginning to perform same-sex marriages.

[Not Me]

This, too.

California Statutes Clearly Do Prohibit Same-Sex Marriage

To begin with, it is quite clear that California statutes currently prohibit same-sex marriage. One provision of the Family Law Code says that "marriage" is a "personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman."

Another provision states that those capable of providing consent to marriage are an "unmarried male of the age of 18 years or older, and an unmarried female of the age of 18 years or older."

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, section 308.5 of the Family Law Code -- , which was enacted by the voters themselves as an initiative (Proposition 22) in the 2000 election -- , says that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

[Not Me]

I just heard a guy who was on Martha's jury say that the jury thought it important that the defense only put on one witness. He said it made her seem overconfident that this was not a big deal and arrogant.

I know that juries feel it is disrespectful to them when the defense feels it doesn't need to make its case, too.

He claimed that it did not matter to them that she didn't testify, but I don't believe that. I think he just said that because he knows if he said otherwise, it means that he failed to follow the judge's instructions not make inferences regarding her not testifying.

[Hank Chinaski]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...html?from=top5

Three Pakistani gang rapists who are facing life in jail yesterday begged a judge to be pardoned, citing cultural differences that led to the brutal attack, immaturity on their part and hardship within their families if they were imprisoned.

But Supreme Court Justice Brian Sully said "culture or no culture", a strong message needed to be sent to other young men that such horrific sex crimes against women will not be tolerated in modern society.

Five males, four of whom are brothers, were found guilty last year of nine counts of aggravated sexual assault in company - which carries a maximum life sentence - on two girls, aged 16 and 17, at the brothers' Ashfield family home on July 28, 2002.

The brothers are representing themselves because they believe an anti-Muslim conspiracy has prevented a fair hearing. Their father, a practising doctor, told the court they should be pardoned because they "did not know the culture of this country".

Thought of a few "funny" additions, but this is just too sick.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Thought of a few "funny" additions, but this is just too sick.

It is islam that is sick. That religion breeds a culture of hatred against women.

[Hank Chinaski]

John Kerry on how Bush "misled" on Iraq. Basically, Kerry didn't think Bush meant what he said.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?

file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/03/EDGVG5CFUG1.DTL

IT'S AN ODD campaign gimmick, but Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., often tells voters that he was "misled" and that's why he voted for an October 2002 resolution authorizing military force against Iraq.

Kerry says he believed the resolution tied President Bush to promises to build an international coalition, to work with the United Nations and only go to war as a last resort. A disappointed Kerry now says Bush failed in all three venues.

Kerry's story only works if you don't know that the resolution didn't bind Bush as Kerry said.

A month before Kerry's "yes'' vote, Bush went to the United Nations and said the following: "Saddam Hussein has defied the United Nations 16 times. Not once, not twice -- 16 times he has defied the U. N. The U.N. has told him after the (Persian) Gulf War what to do, what the world expected, and 16 times he's defied it. And enough is enough. The U.N. will either be able to function as a peacekeeping body as we head into the 21st century, or it will be irrelevant. And that's what we're about to find out.''

When Kerry met with The Chronicle Editorial Board on Friday, I had the chance to ask the senator how he could have expected Bush to behave differently in light of what Bush had said.

Kerry's answer reminds me of the angry customer in the Federal Express ad, who, clad only in a towel and a loofah mitt, calls a company to complain that FedEx delivered his package as scheduled, which he should not have expected, and by the way it inconveniently interrupted a "complicated exfoliation."

Kerry's answer was that Washington insiders believed that Bush didn't mean what he said. "I think that you had a hard-line group (then Pentagon adviser) Richard Perle, (Deputy Defense Secretary) Paul Wolfowitz and probably (Vice President Dick) Cheney. But when Brent Scowcroft and Jim Baker (former advisers to the first President Bush) weighed in, very publicly in op-eds in the New York Times and the (Washington) Post, the chatter around Washington and (Secretary of State Colin) Powell in particular, who was very much of a different school of thought, was really that the president hadn't made up his mind. He was looking for an out. That's what a lot of people thought."

What about what Bush said to the U.N.? That was "rhetorical," Kerry answered. And "a whole bunch of very smart legitimate people" not running for president thought as he did. "So most people, actually on the inside, really felt that (Bush) himself was looking for the way out to sort of satisfy Cheney, satisfy Wolfowitz, but not get stuck." Kerry continued, "The fact that he jumped and went the other way, I think, shocked them and shocked us."

So Kerry was "misled" because he believed that Bush didn't mean what Bush said.

Talk about your dirty tricks

Kerry would do well to read why we never had a President Romney before he goes too much further down this road.

[sgtclub]

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=xwkU...9zyjk9Pw%3D%3D

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=xwkU...9zyjk9Pw%3D%3D

[Somebody in the media has finally picked up upon what I have been saying for a while - they must be reading this board]

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by sgtclub

[Somebody in the media has finally picked up upon what I have been saying for a while - they must be reading this board]

Nice try, doggg. But like a lot of free trade jingos, you're fighting straw men. Let's see data that free trade with a country that has a substantially lower standard of living and a huge amount of labor in all catagories doesn't depress wages. Before we keep tearing down the legal barriers to companies exporting jobs from the U.S., I'd like to see data that U.S. workers are better off, even taking into account any gains in purchasing power. If you can't prove they're better off than why on Earth should they vote for free trade? The focus of trade policy shouldn't be helping extremely wealthy people and foreign workers at the expense of U.S. workers.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Originally posted by sgtclub



Nice try, doggg. But like a lot of free trade jingos, you're fighting straw men. Let's see data that free trade with a country that has a substantially lower standard of living and a huge amount of labor in all catagories doesn't depress wages. Before we keep tearing down the legal barriers to companies exporting jobs from the U.S., I'd like to see data that U.S. workers are better off, even taking into account any gains in purchasing power. If you can't prove they're better off than why on Earth should they vote for free trade? The focus of trade policy shouldn't be helping extremely wealthy people and foreign workers at the expense of U.S. workers.

This is economics 101, dogg. But here is an article for your viewing pleasure. http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml?pid=1155

Question: Why was free trade a good thing when Clinton signed NAFTA, but now forms the basis of all that's wrong with the economy?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is economics 101, dogg. But here is an article for your viewing pleasure. http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml?pid=1155

Yes it is. America has been the great advocate of free trade for as long as the notion has been strongly advocated by anyone in modern times. Our collective standard of living is doing just fine, though the horse-trading in Washington is putting us on a collision course with doom in other ways... like Social Security.

For example, home ownership is at, what, an all time high? I'd be interested in seeing if it ever declined. America is a consumer society, and that is our own problem (until Japan, Europe etc... become consumer societies too). That savings rates of other nations makes me blush, but in large part that is a function of individual choice in this country. People think they *need* to consume a dozen pairs of shoes each year, new cars every 2 or 3, all sorts of discretionary medical care that you couldn't even find somewhere else and so on and so on. And then people wonder why the average American only has 60 or 100K in non-home equity in the bank when they retire (or is it die?). As for consumption though, whose standard of living is declining again? For different reasons, I'll admit to worrying a lot more for anyone in our generation foolish enough to bank on Social Security for their retirement though. Those are the true economic victims-to-be in our country, and all because of failed socialist compromises of our past that lead to entitlement-presumptions in the present.

Originally posted by sgtclub
Question: Why was free trade a good thing when Clinton signed NAFTA, but now forms the basis of all that's wrong with the economy?

This is not something I'd advocate asking. It was one of the best things Clinton did, and the bulk of Democrats (not that SitC is necessarily one) would be happy to walk him off the plank for it.

Hello

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by sgtclub

This is economics 101, dogg. But here is an article for your viewing pleasure. http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml?pid=1155

Your article is irrelevant. It discusses the effects of free trade on maximizing production. It does not have theory, much less data, to show that workers aren't worse of from free trade. There is research showing that blue collar US workers who are displaced due to free trade suffer short term, as well as permanent, wage loss.

Question: Are you in favor of a permanent tax on consumption and investment income to compensate US workers for losses of wages? Full compensation for permanent wage loss may be substantial.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Originally posted by sgtclub



Your article is irrelevant. It discusses the effects of free trade on maximizing production. It does not have theory, much less data, to show that workers aren't worse of from free trade. There is research showing that blue collar US workers who are displaced due to free trade suffer short term, as well as permanent, wage loss.

Question: Are you in favor of a permanent tax on consumption and investment income to compensate US workers for losses of wages? Full compensation for permanent wage loss may be substantial.

Short term I agree. Long term I don't, but your comment seems to presume that blue collar workers are entitled to earn at least a certain wage for their specific services in perpituity, whether or not there is a demand for those services. Am I reading you correctly?

I am absolute against a permanent tax on investment income, or more precisely put, a double, punitive tax. I can get behind a consumption tax as a replacement for other forms of taxation, but not on top of it. I am absolutely against any tax the proceeds of which would go to subsidize labor that can be provided more efficiently somewhere else, though I may be able to get behind the proceeds going to job re-training for these peope.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by sgtclub

Short term I agree. Long term I don't, but your comment seems to presume that blue collar workers are entitled to earn at least a certain wage for their specific services in perpituity, whether or not there is a demand for those services. Am I reading you correctly?

I am absolute against a permanent tax on investment income, or more precisely put, a double, punitive tax.

Unskilled workers on average suffer long term wage loss from free trade and immigration. And given that globalization is moving up the food chain, skilled workers will as well. I doubt you can prove that gains in purchasing power will make up for that wage loss. If 50.1% of the U.S. population will have a worse standard of living due to free trade and immigration, they should vote against free trade and immigration. They should do that unless there are going to receive full compensation from the 49.9% of the U.S. population that benefits from free trade.

Retraining is no solution. Free trade and immigration are simply lowering the standard of living for U.S. workers that are substitutes for foreign workers in countries with lower standards of living. Retrain for any job you like, free trade and immigration are depressing wages at all skill levels. The clear beneficiaries of free trade and immigration are foreign workers in undeveloped countries and owners of capital. There is no good reason for U.S. workers to hurt themselves in order to benefit foreign workers and owners of capital.

I'm also in favor of eliminating double taxation of corporate earnings, as long as we hike taxes on high income individuals enough to recoup the losses in revenue.