I don’t think we’re legal in Kansas anymore

Occasionally, in the interests of making a point, someone does something so guaranteed to cause them a world of trouble that you wonder if they’re a closet masochist, or if they’ve just lost their mind. This week, that someone is Gov. Sam Brownback (R-KS). I can’t say I’ve been a fan of his since his office indirectly made a student write him an apology letter for tweeting about him with the hashtag #heblowsalot. He gets credit for his work on the conflict minerals file. But not on this file, by a long shot.

Last week, Brownback signed into law a statute that would prevent the federal government from enforcing certain gun laws if they infringe on the manufacture and sale of guns within state borders. Not only that, any federal official – except for U.S. Marshals or Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents – would be charged with a felony for attempting to enforce said laws. Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who helped put the statute together, says the Interstate Commerce Clause is enough to make this constitutional.

Naturally, Attorney General Eric Holder is basing his counter-attack on the Supremacy Clause. Let’s take a look at both of them:

The Congress shall have power . . . to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes . . .

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Now, if you’re a (second half of the) Second Amendment literalist, you’ll probably argue that gun control laws are by nature not made “in pursuance” of the Constitution. But let’s focus on the Commerce Clause. United States v. Lopez is arguably the most famous gun-related Supreme Court decision in which this clause was a factor; without giving too much away, if you disagree with Brownback and Kobach, you probably won’t be happy with the outcome of that case.

So it could turn out that “made in Kansas” gun manufacture and sale ultimately falls under state purview. But the idea that the same will apply to felony charges against federal employees doing their jobs is insane. Perhaps this is a gimmick to force the Supreme Court to rule at least partly in Brownback and Kobach’s favor (because you know this is going to the Supreme Court). Or maybe it’s just insane.

Speaking of insane: Glenn Beck at the National Rifle Association (NRA) convention. “All of mankind” isn’t that worried, but thanks for the shout-out.

The word “slapdash” was invented specifically for . . .

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by Gov. Bob McDonnell’s (R-VA) transportation plan. As far as high-profile Republicans go, McDonnell is generally at the more likable end of the spectrum. But likability isn’t enough to save him from the thumping he is enduring over his transportation plan. You may have seen some headlines decrying the extra fee he plans to impose on registrations for hybrid and electric vehicles. Some of you may consider that a way to make up for all the federal subsidies that owners of those vehicles enjoy, and for paying less in gas taxes, for obvious reasons. But there’s much more to this than hybrid fees.

McDonnell initially thought it would be a great idea to scrap the state gas tax entirely. Thankfully, he’s been talked down from that ledge. But he did decide to scrap the 17.5 percent excise tax on gas in favor of a 3.5 percent wholesale sales tax. Then, when defending the hybrid fee – originally $100, now $64 – he quoted President Ronald Reagan’s 1983 speech on the necessity of doubling the national gas tax in order to fund infrastructure projects. If McDonnell’s ideas and Reagan’s florid prose on infrastructure seem at odds to you, you’re not alone. But there’s more:

• The wholesale sales tax will end rise to 5.1 percent if Congress does not authorize states to collect online sales taxes.
• The plan expands some tolling throughout Virginia, most or all of whose revenue will fund the expansion of the Silver Line, a rapid transit project. Tolling along I-95 south of Fredericksburg will be prohibited.
• The car titling tax will rise to 4.3 percent from 3 percent.
• Sales taxes will rise to 5.3 percent from 5 percent; the increase will be diverted to transportation.

We’re supposed to believe that nickel-and-diming Virginians is the key to reliable funding for road and bridge repair? This plan closes or narrows almost as many revenue streams as it opens, and the magnitude of the narrowing of the most obvious revenue stream is astounding. It gives one the impression that he started with the idea of slashing the gas tax, then wrote out ways to make up for the losses on a Post-It note.

If he wants advice on how to do these things right, he might call on Steve from Winnipeg, who was instrumental in helping me flesh out the idea for today’s post. If this blog had a cabinet, I’d appoint him to run the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development departments.

Review: “Minnesota’s Miracle” by Tom Berg

Older readers, especially those from Minnesota, might remember when the issue of Time with this cover came out and the accompanying feeling of pride. Everything that’s happened to Minnesota politics since then – the shutdowns, the budget trouble, the elections of which the results take days to weeks to determine – has probably made those same people wonder what the hell has gone wrong since then. Former state legislator Tom Berg, who was in the thick of it when the Time cover came out, has identified exactly what has gone wrong, and spelled out the national implications in his book Minnesota’s Miracle: Learning from the Government That Worked.

The eponymous “Minnesota Miracle” refers to a 1971 bill that restructured state fiscal policy to share state tax revenue with local governments, to make sure schools and other basic services were properly funded. Today, the long-term effects of that plan are still being felt and debated and could possibly be reworked, to meet modern fiscal realities. The “miracle” is less the bill itself than the political goodwill it took to achieve it.

Berg’s recommendations for making politics work again are fully detailed in the back of the book, and are, thankfully, too numerous to list here. Since the virtues of compromise, avoiding buzzwords and teaching civics are well-known (yet largely avoided), I will focus on a couple that often go unmentioned. First, the value of local government. We have fallen into a trap in which we see federal and state matters, but no others. Why not cities, countries, even neighborhoods? All are capable of helping meet state and federal objectives, if they are involved.

Second, the use of the term “national interest.” While we have centralized too much in our application of politics, we have decentralized too much in our rhetoric. Even as they consult with smaller governments, the federal government needs to argue vigorously for changes that benefit the nation, provided that efforts to make those changes are indeed constitutional. Not all federal action or discussion is overreach, and we shouldn’t think of it that way.

Third, the policy implications of government procedure. They’re dry – not even Berg can make them sexy – but vital. For example, when are pay raises for legislators better than the alternative? (When it’s more feasible for them to have two jobs.) What kind of staff should they hire to achieve the best legislative results? (The non-political kind.) When is it appropriate to rework legislative scheduling and voting process in order to get something done? (Surprisingly often.)

The book could have benefitted from an extra round of copy editing, but I’m just nitpicky. Overall, everything Berg wrote is necessary to his narrative, and his book could not be more timely. I deem it shelf-worthy.

Amending from the bench

The downside of electing judges – especially in partisan elections, instead of in terms of “who would interpret the Constitution most accurately?” – is what we’ve been seeing in Louisiana. It sometimes makes you long for the simplicity of gubernatorial appointments, even if there’s a legislative confirmation process involved. Imagine if we elected Supreme Court justices on a national scale – that would be one hell of a doozy. (Government reform advocates: Just don’t.)

Article V, Section 6 of the Louisiana State Constitution states the following:

The judge oldest in point of service on the supreme court shall be chief justice.

Couldn’t be more straightforward, could it? When the chief justice slot is unfilled, the justice who gets it is the one who has served longest on that bench. Easy-peasy. Except it’s not. In Louisiana, Bernette Johnson is the longest-serving justice, having been on the bench since 1994. But she was appointed there, “not elected, as part of a state settlement with the federal government over racial discrimination that expanded the court to seven justices from six.” Justice Jeffrey Victory, who started serving in 1995, says he should be chief justice for that reason.

For a fun cheap shot, let’s look at Johnson and Victory side-by-side. Who looks more like a chief justice to you? Johnson does not look like a judge you want to mess with. Victory looks like he should be telling you that bike tire pumps can be found in aisle 17, right next to the air compressors. But of course aesthetics aren’t a factor in this case (somewhat disappointingly).

ANYWAY. The Louisiana Constitution as it stands does not require the chief justice to be elected. It does not stipulate that a judge who is appointed for any reason is anything less than “a full-fledged judge” (Hardware Guy’s words). There is no evidence of anything on the books that disqualifies Johnson from having a year of seniority on him. He and the justices who are backing him – which, sadly, is all of them, save Johnson – are making up the rules as they go along. Is racism behind this, as many suspect, since they’re all white and Johnson is black? Is it jealousy on Victory’s part? Only he knows. What we do know is that this amounts to nothing more than legal ambiguity that can’t be resolved by just arguing over it.

A U.S. federal judge has already ruled as much, which Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) doesn’t like; he would rather have seen the court settle it for itself. Letting “outside judges” rule on the matter was an idea of outgoing Chief Justice Catherine Kimball. Knowing that, I’d say the court already has settled it for itself. They just need to remember who writes the Constitution in their state. (Spoiler: They don’t.)

Just stop badgering these people

(For you idiots who don’t get the title: Wisconsin is nicknamed the Badger State. Study up.)

In previous discussions of the Wisconsin union law that led to Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) being subjected to a recall election, I concluded that it was one thing for public-sector employees to reconsider the value of their unions, but inexcusable for the state executive to take their collective bargaining rights away without any evident consultations. Not only is such a move morally unsound, but blatantly ideological. You all know I’m all for fiscal responsibility, but other governments have achieved that without resorting to this.

Anyway, as I’m writing this, we are T-minus 91 minutes away from the scheduled poll close, with exit polling showing both a high turnout and a close race. (Update.) Interestingly, while two percentage points more Democrats than Republicans have shown up, there were two percentage points more supporters of the union law than opponents. Conclusion: Apparently, exit polling doesn’t mean much. You know what else wouldn’t have meant much? The presence of President Obama.

The question was asked by the Christian Science Monitor, which, to their credit, pointed out the fact that “[t]he Wisconsin recall is in fact not a true microcosm of the November election.” Of course it isn’t. This should be obvious to anyone who knows why the recall election is taking place, which would naturally include virtually everyone who’s coming out to vote in it.

Yet, for some stupid reason, that idea persists. To quote CBS, “many are looking to the race to provide clues into the presidential election this November.” Market Watch says, rather decisively, that the recall is “to ripple into November.” The New York Times says “[t]he result is poised to shape the general election fight between [President] Obama and [former Gov.] Mitt Romney (R-MA).” The Daily Caller says this vote could “tip the battleground state against [Obama].”

Honestly, how the hell is any of this true? Has anyone conducted an exit poll on how many people came out to vote because of Obama vs. Romney, as opposed to Walker vs. Democratic opponent Tom Barrett? This is one instance in which I have to break my self-imposed rule against complaining about media coverage. Multiple outlets, which are normally on the reasonable side, have imbued this state recall with national implications that it simply does not have.

If November’s results from Wisconsin match these, it’ll be because the state felt this way anyway, not because Walker/Barrett have anything to do with Obama/Romney.

It stops encroaching Sharia law and stuff

If you want an example of this “encroaching Sharia law” we’ve all been hearing so much about lately, I am pleased to present it to you: At Valley Park Middle School in Toronto, where the majority of the student body is Muslim, an imam comes in every Friday to lead prayers in the cafeteria. . . . OK, so it’s not encroaching Sharia law. But it’s probably as bad as anything supporters of a now-passed bill to ban the use of non-American law in the Kansas court system can come up with – if that was their argument, and, in practice, it’s not.

The true purpose of the bill, says State Rep. Peggy Mast (R-KS76), is to clarify to foreigners that only the law on American books will be used in judicial and agency decision-making. She pointed to 50 cases of courts or government agencies using foreign law, including Sharia, to come to a conclusion, often when the issue at hand concerned family law and/or women. Opponents of the bill insist that its sole purpose is “to hold Islam out for ridicule.”

The bill itself does not mention Sharia, nor do similar bills in other states. I suspect that it has come up because it is the most recognizable set of foreign laws to which Americans would object, and it’s pretty easy to get some political mileage out of that, especially in Kansas. If that’s all the “Sharia thing” is about, you can call the bill’s sponsors discriminatory or needlessly focused on Islam, but not the legislation itself.

As for the substance of the law: If it’s true that courts and/or agencies factor non-American law into their decisions, I would love to see them held accountable for it. Certainly some countries’ laws could have valuable lessons. But it is ultimately the makers of the law who determine that, meaning the legislative branch, not the interpreters or the enforcers. Although I am skeptical of the idea that there are enough examples of this to merit a new law.

If Mast and her supporters are worried about immigrants or foreign tourists thinking in terms of their own country’s law while they’re in the U.S., she might pursue changes to the citizenship process. Here in Canada, our own Immigration Minister Jason Kenney made changes to the citizenship guide that makes it clear that certain cultural practices, like genital mutilation and honor killing, are unacceptable on Canadian soil. It probably won’t completely stop those from happening, but it’s a good statement.

Of course, anyone who starts making a list of “barbaric” foreign practices to outlaw will probably exhibit an inordinate focus on Islam. But that’s what happens when they come from a theocracy and you don’t.

Disposal Day #111: Hail Minnesota!

STORY #1: Bridge to somewhere

As you see here, the St. Croix River forms a considerable expanse of the border between Minnesota and Wisconsin – 125 miles, to be exact. There are currently 14 bridge crossings over the river, more than one for every ten miles. The $700 million bridge at Stillwater, MN, will replace the 81-year-old lift bridge that already resides there. What’s one new, improved bridge when you already have 14? Enough to make Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) and other Democrats oppose it.

The actual legislation would exempt the bridge under then-Sen. Walter Mondale’s (D-MN) Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, requiring Congress to approve “certain types of construction” at rivers. It seems, indeed, that they have. That’s not good enough for McCollum, environmental groups and deficit hawks who fear excessive a) river pollution and b) costs. Considering this bridge’s dismal structural efficiency rating, I’d say the costs of not replacing it could end up being much higher. I would have voted for it.

STORY #2: Speaking of replacements

If $700 million sounds like a fair price to pay for a bridge, try $975 million for a stadium – $737 million of it public money. That’s the estimated cost of a new stadium for the Minnesota Vikings where the Metrodome stands now. This isn’t the first stadium plan residents have seen, but it was agreed upon by Gov. Mark Dayton (D-MN), Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak and owners Mark and Zygi Wilf, which is a milestone. Deficit hawks aren’t too impressed with this one, either, despite promises of no new taxes.

Normally I would be skeptical myself, but considering the versatility of the Metrodome, the subsequent revenue from events other than Vikings games could be just as valuable to the state economy as it was when the Dome was fully inflated. I don’t think any Minnesotan would fail to cringe at the thought of another Big 4 team looking to California for a home. And if they’re worried about losing their own money on this deal, they could always try that racino.

STORY #3: B aggressive

This is from last week, but it’s awesome: State lawmakers in Minnesota are proposing a new corporate structure known as the public benefit corporation, or B-corp: a profit-making entity that would factor externalities like environmental and health risks into its bottom line. They wouldn’t be the first state to do it, but it’s baffling that all states don’t have this structure already. What better way to separate the assholes from the non-assholes? It’s an Occupy half-sympathizer’s wet dream.

Disposal Day #109: The party of big government

STORY #1: Don’t have sex in Oklahoma

In recent days, on the heels of a completely unnecessary divisive debate over something as simple as birth control, we have seen a number of Republican-controlled state legislatures descend into madness. We begin with Oklahoma, where the state Senate has just passed a bill that would define embryos as persons. Whether Gov. Mary Fallin (R-OK) will sign it remains to be seen, but given her track record, it’s not unlikely.

My thoughts: 1. The sperm cell is the ingredient of a fetus that carries the potential for life; by the logic of this bill, non-procreational sex and masturbation should also be off the table. 2. I’m not seeing an exemption for medically necessary abortions. I don’t care how few there are; they exist. 3. A provision giving women who miscarry legal immunity? Wow, that’s sad. 4. This is not the state’s business. It’s the business of the woman, her partner (if she consented) and her doctor. Everyone else has the obligation to remain silent.

STORY #2: Don’t read in Arizona

Not to be outdone, someone in the Arizona Senate actually put forward a bill that would subject teachers (K-12 and post-secondary) to the same profanity laws that would apply if they were broadcasting their lectures on TV and radio. This thing is so poorly written that it doesn’t even apply just to their lectures; it would apply to speech or conduct, period. Even if that were corrected, a book that has a swear word in it could conceivably be, for all intents and purposes, banned.

Thoughts: 1. I remember one prof who swore a lot. We thought it was funny. Anyone who doesn’t needs to put their genitals under their pillow and hope the Nut Fairy brings them some new ones. 2. This is from the same state senator that pulled a gun on a reporter and stopped short of saying Herman Cain should have harassed her because she was “not an unattractive woman.” (You know, if you’re blind and a moron.) 3. What exactly is the point of this thing?

STORY #3: Die in Jersey if you can

Finally, New Jersey, where Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) has decided to lower the flags at state buildings for . . . Whitney Houston. OK, I get it that she was a favorite daughter of the state and an inspirational figure, but so what? Are they going to lower the flags when The Situation finally meets his inevitable death? It’s not quite holding a state funeral for someone who only got as far as Opposition leader, but I always thought state flags were lowered for people who worked in the service of the state. Please, just stick to protocol. It’s there for a reason.

Welcome to the great state of East Illinois

If you’ve ever been skeptical that there really is such a thing as an urban-rural divide, look no further. Illinois State Rep. Bill Mitchell (R-Decatur) is tired of those damn Cook County residents, mostly Chicagoans, voting for different tax and firearm policies than they do. In fact, he’s so tired of it that he wants to jettison the area entirely. Let Cook County be a state unto itself, he recommends, in all seriousness.

Rural Illinois residents are not subject to Cook County taxes, of course, but those who want to pack heat in the Chicagoland area may have a hard time with it. And after all, they represent the largest voting bloc in the state, which greatly affects the results of gubernatorial and presidential primary elections. It all comes down to a question of values, Mitchell says, and the divergence of these values is simply irreconcilable. He wants all Illinoisans to vote in a referendum on statehood for Cook County.

Never mind that Mitchell represents a district within a county that doesn’t even border Cook, and as such has no say in their future. I would argue that every state needs a major urban area to be the epicenter of politics and certain economic sectors. For example, South Dakota doesn’t have a particular city around which to coalesce, which doesn’t draw in enough human capital for there to be a decent tax base, which would ultimately benefit the state as a whole.

At the same time, that city needs a surrounding rural area. Cities are not where you find natural resources or agriculture or a good deal of tourism. You can’t put large-scale manufacturing facilities in a major city, except on the outskirts. There are too many mutual economic benefits to be had for cities and rural areas to try living without one another. Where will the remaining part of Illinois center its business once Cook County is gone? Springfield?

Perhaps inadvertently, Mitchell has opened the door to a renewed need for consistent dialogue between urban and rural America. I recall a newspaper letter writer once scoffing at the idea of city papers covering rural news. This is one way city dwellers can stay up to date on the concerns of outlying parts of the state, and it has to be regular. The same goes for all forms of media. Further, each city could use one organization within its borders that addresses rural economic needs.

There’s no need for an urban-rural divide to take place anywhere. It starts with a willingness to organize consistent, reliable conversation. Mitchell would be of no help in such an effort. But if he would like a look at the future of separatism, he should make a trip up to Canada and see how those parties have turned out.

Check your “Minnesota nice” at the state house door

Put Gov. Mark Dayton (D-MN), who has never been shy about his desire for upper-income tax hikes, in the same state house as a bunch of cut-happy Republican legislators, and you had a recipe for the Minnesota government shutdown from the beginning. I knew there could be problems if Minnesotans didn’t rally around a gubernatorial candidate for whom bipartisanship would be a cornerstone of that office’s duties. I didn’t expect it to get this bad.

To read the first link, describing the frustration of Minnesotans desiring to access the state’s recreational services, you’d think it’s a minor hiccup that will ruin a weekend or two. In reality, there are some very important charitable and non-profit organizations who, like it or not, have depended on some measure of state funding. If the shutdown persists, they may have to make major operational cutbacks while searching for new funds. All because Dayton and the legislature can’t agree on a thing.

While I’m not happy about this, the shutdown carries political opportunities – just not for Dayton and the Minnesota GOP. First, with the nationwide coverage it has received, the shutdown could demonstrate to others that government spending has rewards. It would not negate the need to hold it steady, but it might prompt lawmakers to begin charity at home.

Second, it could demonstrate to certain people that Minnesotans, as well as most Americans, do want compromise when it comes to fiscal matters. They may have their own ideas about how to fix the budget; they may want their own ideas to prevail over others. But, ultimately, the majority of Americans are not such ideologues that they will give up if the ensuing solution happens to differ from their own.

Third, it could – and may already have – open the door for Horner’s Independence Party (IP), or similar groups, to become more politically influential. Despite racking up almost every major newspaper endorsement last year, the false Republican-Democratic dichotomy among voters contributed to his dismal showing. Certainly the IP is not a silver bullet to any political impasse in Minnesota, but at this point, they seem like the likeliest builders of consensus.

The stoppage of government in Minnesota on various levels, during and between elections, has revealed a near 50/50 ideological split in the state. It’s time someone brought those 50s together; neither Dayton nor the GOP can be trusted to do this.