;)
The Commentariat -- May 27, 2015
All internal links removed.
Afternoon Update:
Michael Shear of the New York Times: "President Obama will put off a confrontation at the Supreme Court over his immigration executive actions, choosing not to ask for permission to carry out the programs while a fight over presidential authority plays out in the lower courts, officials said Wednesday. As a result, Mr. Obama's vast overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, which he announced with great fanfare last November, might not be resolved until just months before he leaves office."
Trip Gabriel of the New York Times: "Rick Santorum, who was the runner-up in the Republican primary race four years ago but has never been considered his party's heir apparent, is announcing his second presidential bid on Wednesday."
Dan Balz & Robert Costa of the Washington Post: "Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who has been actively gauging reactions to a possible campaign for president in 2016, is now moving rapidly to assemble the staff and financial resources for such a bid and is looking to declare his candidacy sometime after June 30, according to knowledgeable Republicans." CW: Apparently god gave Kasich the signal.
*****
Today's Existential Question:
Are You Still a Person if You Don't Vote?
Robert Barnes of the Washington Post: "The Supreme Court said Tuesday that it will decide an important 'one person, one vote' case next term to determine whether states should consider total population -- or only eligible voters -- when drawing roughly equal legislative districts. A shift from using total population would have an enormous impact in states with large immigrant populations, where greater numbers are children or noncitizens. It would shift power from urban areas to more rural districts." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
David Savage of the Los Angeles Times: "The case was brought to the high court by Edward Blum, a conservative activist who two years ago won the Supreme Court ruling that struck down part of the Voting Rights Act. Blum also launched a constitutional challenge to the affirmative action policy at the University of Texas that is still pending."
Here's more on Blum by Morgan Smith of the New York Times (February 2012). Thanks to Victoria D. for the link.
The New York Times story on the case, by Adam Liptak, is here.
Richard Pildes in Election Law Blog: "In 1966, in the earliest days of the reapportionment revolution, the Court did hold that states could choose between equalizing population or eligible voters (Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73 (1966)). But a lot has happened in the maturation of the law in the ensuing 50 years; in general, the Court has placed greater emphasis on the use of more concrete, precise standards.... In practice, most states have used residents, not voters, for the baseline, but the doctrine leaves open the possibility that states could use other baselines. And as long as the baseline remains constitutionally undefined, states can manipulate the districting system by choosing one baseline over another...."
Ed Kilgore: "To put it another way, the plaintiffs in the case are attempting to replace the doctrine of 'one person, one vote' with 'one voter, one vote.'... In litigation going back to the early 1960s, when the 'one person, one vote' principle was first implemented under SCOTUS' direction, no federal court has previously held counting only voters (or voting-age people, or voting-eligible people) is required. So yeah, it would be a pretty big deal if that were to change."
Erik Loomis of LG&M: "... if Republicans get their way, treating Latinos as non-persons in politics will be a lot easier...."
Julia Preston of the New York Times: "A federal appeals court on Tuesday denied the Obama administration's request to lift a hold on the president's executive actions on immigration, which would have granted protection from deportation as well as work permits to millions of immigrants in the country illegally. Two of three judges on a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, left in place an injunction by a Federal District Court judge in Brownsville, Tex. The ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by Texas and 25 other states against actions President Obama took in November. Many of the initiatives were scheduled to take effect this month." ...
... Ian Millhiser explains.
Sean Cockerham & Lesley Clark of McClatchy News: "President Barack Obama on Tuesday urged the Senate to renew National Security Agency surveillance powers before they expire at midnight Sunday, as Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul vowed to keep working to block the Patriot Act and the bulk collection of Americans' phone records.... White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, asked what Obama was doing to round up votes, suggested, without naming him, that Paul needs to put the country first as he runs for the Republican nomination for president." ...
Lori Aratani of the Washington Post: "Amtrak will install inward-facing video cameras on a majority of its Northeast Corridor trains by the end of this year, officials announced Tuesday, another in a series of safety measures the rail company has taken since a fatal May 12 derailment that killed eight people and injured more than 200. In a conference call with reporters, Amtrak President and CEO Joseph Boardman said the cameras will allow railroad officials to monitor the actions of engineers while they are on the job." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Lisa Rein & Jonelle Marte of the Washington Post: "Hackers gained access to personal information of 104,000 taxpayers this spring, downloading an online service the Internal Revenue Service uses to give Americans access to their past tax returns, the agency said Tuesday. The information included several years' worth of returns and other tax information on file with the IRS, Commissioner John Koskinen said in a press conference. The thieves hacked into a system called 'Get Transcript,' clearing a security screen that requires users to know the taxpayer's Social Security number, date of birth, address and tax filing status."
Brian Beutler of the New Republic: "... it looks like all the time Democrats wasted on negotiating with [former Sen. Olympia] Snowe [R-Maine], and allowing her to help shape the legislation, has paid off. Snowe has, to my knowledge, become the first contemporaneous Republican senator, current or former, to acknowledge that a Supreme Court challenge meant to cripple Obamacare is built on a tissue of lies. If the Court sides with Obamacare opponents, her comments will become incredibly relevant to the ensuing political shitstorm." ...
... CW: Nonetheless, the confederate Supremes can & will (a) go with a "textual" reading -- i.e., what that one phrase says -- & (b) either cite comments by some of the many Republican legislators who have been pretending that the intent of the clause was to coerce the states into setting up their own exchanges, OR these so-called justices will ignore intent altogether. The only thing we don't know is whether Roberts &/or Kennedy have enough integrity to rule against this farce. It would not surprise me if all of the confederate Supremes ruled for the plaintiffs & hid behind the Congress-can-just-fix-it ruse. ...
... Charles Pierce: "The case itself is preposterous, a creature of the alternate universe of conservative epistemic closure come to blunder around in the lives of real people with real problems. And it's still a damn toss-up."
Joe Heim of the Washington Post: "... Indian American kids have placed a stranglehold on the Scripps National Spelling Bee, winning it now for seven years in a row and all but four of the last 15 years.... Bee organizers were appalled by the reaction to last year's contest, when Sriram, then 14, and his co-winner Ansun, then 13, were greeted with a barrage of racist comments on Facebook and Twitter." CW: Hay reel American kids arent dum. Sumbuddys cheeting. (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Bryan Bender & Philip Ewing of Politico: "... when [Secretary of Defense Ash] Carter showed up for work on Monday, according to top aides, he was hailed as a hero of sorts by the top brass for bluntly saying what they have been privately warning for months. 'This is Carter calling it the way he sees it,' said a senior Pentagon official..., explaining that his public rebuke, in a brief interview aired on CNN's 'State of the Union' program, was not coordinated with the White House. 'There is a lot of people here who think that is an important message....' White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Carter's comments were 'consistent with the analysis that he's received from those who are on the ground,' but he also stressed that in many cases Iraqi troops had shown bravery in their battle against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant."
Rick Gladstone of the New York Times: "... if history is a guide, [the] fate [of Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian, who is on trial in Iran on espionage & other charges,] may be tied to Iranian political tensions and calculations in the estranged relations between Iran and the United States that may have nothing to do with the accusations, according to political experts, relatives of prisoners and former prisoners."
Nick Gass of Politico: In compliance with a Freedom of Information Act request, the FBI has just released its file on Ben Bradlee, the legendary Washington Post editor-in-chief. It seems J. Edgar Hoover didn't like him much. The complete release is here.
We will now take a break from our regularly-scheduled links to legitimate news, analysis & opinion pieces to find out
What Terrible Things the Gays Are Doing Today
Gays Are Self-Indulgent Whiners. Brian Tashman of Right Wing Watch: "The Nazi regime threw thousands of gay people into prison and concentration camps, and according to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, 'homosexuals were among the most abused groups in the camps,' where the Nazis subjected them to medical experiments 'designed policies to "cure" homosexuals of their "disease" through humiliation and hard work.'... But because gays weren't persecuted as harshly as European Jews, BarbWire columnist Christopher Ziegler claims today, Nazi persecution of gay people was a 'myth' propping up a contemporary 'pity party.'"
Gays Are Pedophiles Bent on Recruiting Wholesome Little Heterosexual Boys. Miranda Blue of Right Wing Watch: "... the American Family Association is urging its members to pull their sons from the Boy Scouts out of fear that gay troop leaders will sexually molest them and recruit them into homosexuality. Former AFA official Bryan Fischer, who hosts a daily program on the organization's radio network, called Boy Scouts head Robert Gates' support for admitting gay troop leaders 'a disaster, a moral catastrophe.' If gay men are allowed to lead Boy Scout troops, he said, 'It's no longer going to be Boy Scouts of America, it's going to be Gay Pedophiles Scouting For Boys.'"
Gays Are Gearing up to Persecute Christians. Miranda Blue: "Family Research Council President Tony Perkins wrapped up his group's annual 'Watchmen on the Wall' pastors' conference [last week] by warning the conservative pastors in the audience that although they 'may have five years' before they are dragged 'kicking and screaming' out of their churches if the Supreme Court strikes down same-sex marriage bans, they should start preparing their congregations for 'persecution.'" Also, too, it's already working in the Middle East because American gays are encouraging ISIS & other groups to persecute Christians.
Gays Are Threatening Democracy Itself. Brian Tashman: "In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody, [Sen. Marco] Rubio [R-Fla.] warned that gay marriage represents 'a real and present danger' to America because gay rights advocates are bent on labeling any anti-gay messages, including those from churches, as 'hate speech.'" ...
... Tim Teeman of the Daily Beast: "Does Marco Rubio have any idea of the toxicity of the phrase he is flinging around to score some cheap political capital? Does he have any idea of the true 'hate speech' LGBTs have suffered, not just on political platforms at the hands of people like Marco Rubio in their stoking of their Christian voting base -- words like 'unnatural,' 'pretend families,' words of exclusion that seek to put us outside the boundaries of family, home, and love?"
Gays Are Defeating Humanity. Stephanie Kirchgaessner of the Guardian: "A senior Vatican official has attacked the legalisation of gay marriage in Ireland. The referendum that overwhelmingly backed marriage equality last weekend was a 'defeat for humanity', he claimed.... The remarks by the Vatican's top diplomat, [Cardinal Pietro Parolin,] who is seen as second only to the pope in the church's hierarchy, represent the most damning assessment of the Irish vote by a senior church official to date. It was a far more critical response than the circumspect reaction offered by archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin...."
CW: Congratulations, gay people. I had no idea you had so much power. Very impressive.
Marie's Sports Report
Matt Apuzzo, et al., of the New York Times: "Swiss authorities conducted an extraordinary early-morning operation [in Zurich] Wednesday to arrest several top soccer officials and extradite them to the United States on federal corruption charges. As leaders of FIFA, soccer's global governing body, gathered for their annual meeting, more than a dozen plain-clothed Swiss law enforcement officials arrived unannounced at the Baur au Lac hotel, an elegant five-star property with views of the Alps and Lake Zurich. They went to the front desk to get room numbers and then proceeded upstairs." ...
... Jere Longman of the Times provides some background. ...
... The Washington Post report, by Michael Miller & Fred Barbash, is here. The sports news sites don't have much of anything yet.
** Annals of "Journalism," Ctd. Ryan Cooper of the Week: "... when it comes to Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and the 2016 race, it's clear that he's getting a raw deal. It's long since time the press gave him the respect he deserves.... The constant presumptions about the electoral viability of some candidate amounts to an attempt to influence the outcome of the election, whether it's intentional or not. That might be a justifiable enterprise with someone like former Rep. Ron Paul, who has an extensive history of racism, homophobia, and anti-Semitism. But while Sanders has odd hair, and can be grouchy at times, he ... is a sitting United States senator who could easily finish second in the Democratic presidential primary.... Indeed, if anything Sanders is more credible than the likes of Paul and Cruz ..." who have received extensive & front-page MSM coverage even though they are doing poorly in GOP polls.
Presidential Race
Ben Jacobs of the Guardian: "Vermont senator Bernie Sanders formally launched his long-shot bid to unseat Hillary Clinton from the left on Tuesday in a Burlington, Vermont, park. Sanders ... will mount a populist campaign focused on income inequality, campaign finance reform and fighting climate change. He told the crowd of flag waving attendees on the sunny shore of Lake Champlain, 'Today, with your support and the support of millions of people throughout this country, we begin a political revolution to transform our country economically, politically, socially and environmentally.'" ...
... Here are Sanders' full remarks. ...
... Steve Kornacki of MSNBC argues that Sanders will prove to be Clinton's most effective opponent. (CW: Bernie says he's not running against Clinton; he's running for president.) "A recent Iowa poll put Sanders at 14%, more than O'Malley, Webb and Chafee combined; and a New Hampshire poll gave him 18%, more than doubling up the other three. (That said, he still trails Clinton by around 50 points.)" ...
... CW: However, even if Sanders does much better than 14 percent in some primaries, Hillary will get almost all the "super-delegate" votes, so she's a cinch for the nomination. The whole idea of the super-delegate system is to assure there will never be another George McGovern-type nominee -- & this time around, that means Bernie. As an aside, the reason I started Reality Chex (which I intended to shut down after the 2008 election) was that I had to look all over the place to find out how Obama was doing in the super-delegate count, & I wanted there to be one place where readers could keep track. Initially Obama was way behind Hillary. (I used to write thank-you notes to the super delegates who came out for Obama. Especially in the early months, that took guts.) My best source, I must admit, was Mark Halperin.) ...
... AND what's not to love in Politico's characterization of Bernie's backers? Jonathan Topaz: "These weren't your everyday Americans who came out to support Bernie Sanders on Tuesday. The self-described democratic socialist kicked off his long-shot run for the White House in his adopted hometown of Burlington, Vt., a lakeside city full of characters who might not have passed the pre-selection process for Hillary Clinton's tour of roundtables.' ...
CW: Seems quite a number of Extraordinary Americans showed up for Bernie's announcement (or maybe they're mostly aliens from another planet or Canada):
Steve M.: "I defend Hillary Clinton because we have a horrible electoral system in which billions will be spent against the Democratic presidential candidate, so billions will be needed to keep the Supreme Court from being restocked with four fortysomething Scalias. I think she's all that's standing in the way of that. But I like what Bernie Sanders says."
ISIS didn't exist when my brother was president. Al Qaeda in Iraq was wiped out when my brother was president. -- Jeb Bush (R), remarks during a business rountable in Portsmouth, N.H., May 20
Bush seems to have fallen prey to Washington conventional wisdom, in which ISIS suddenly emerged into consciousness in the past year or so. That may be fine for armchair analysts or journalists. But that's little excuse for a presidential candidate.... Bush flatly stated as fact that ISIS did not exist when his brother was president -- and that al-Qaeda in Iraq was wiped out when Obama took office. Both statements are false...." -- Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post
Dana Milbank: Rand Paul's "new book, 'Taking a Stand,' came out Tuesday, and it is chock-full of lines that would position Paul well -- if he were running against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination.... And though Paul may think his Republican Party's brand sucks, the primary voters don't necessarily share his view that the party is too old and too white. His candidacy has so far failed to ignite -- and, indeed, he seems to be fading as a force within the party." ...
... Jesse Byrnes of the Hill: "Sen. Rand Paul(R-Ky.) on Wednesday blasted members of his party for sending arms to the Middle East that have ended up in the hands of Islamic militants. Paul ... faulted GOP lawmakers for helping the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)."
Senate Race
Emily Kahn of Roll Call: "Arizona [Democratic] Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick will challenge Republican Sen. John McCain, according to a source with knowledge of Kirkpatrick's plans, giving Democrats a top recruit and a potential pickup opportunity. Kirkpatrick made calls Monday to inform people of her plans, the source told CQ Roll Call. Her bid also opens up Arizona's 1st District, a GOP-leaning seat spanning the northeast quadrant of the state."
Beyond the Beltway
Julie Bosman of the New York Times: "Gov. Pete Ricketts [R] of Nebraska vetoed a bill on Tuesday that would abolish the death penalty in the state, testing the strength of a bipartisan group of lawmakers who said they would try to override his decision.... Lawmakers quickly scheduled a vote to try to override the governor's veto for Wednesday afternoon.... In Nebraska's unicameral Legislature, three rounds of voting are required to approve a bill before it can reach the governor's desk. Last week, in the third round, the Legislature voted 32 to 15 in favor of abolition, two votes more than needed to override a veto."
Sari Horwitz of the Washington Post: "The city of Cleveland has agreed to have its police department overseen by an independent monitor and subject its officers to strict and explicit new rules on the use of force, under a settlement with the Justice Department that was announced Tuesday. The agreement ... imposes some of the toughest standards in the nation on the department. It lays out an array of prohibitions in an effort to reduce violent encounters between the police and the community -- particularly its minorities -- and ingrain 'bias-free policing principles' throughout the department." ...
... Cleveland.com has a full page of links to related stories.
News Ledes
Hill: "The Defense Department accidentally sent live anthrax to labs in nine states and is working with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to contain it, the Pentagon said Wednesday. 'The Department of Defense is collaborating with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in their investigation of the inadvertent transfer of samples containing live Bacillus anthracis, also known as anthrax, from a DoD lab in Dugway, Utah, to labs in nine states,' said Army Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman."
AP: "A second submariner has pleaded guilty to sharing videos of female officers undressing for a shower, continuing a case that a prosecutor calls a 'black eye' for the Navy's integration of women into the nation's sub fleet.... Electronics technician Joseph Bradley entered pleas Wednesday in a court-martial trial. He was sentenced to 30 days' confinement and a reduction in rank.... On Tuesday, missile technician Charles Greaves received two years in prison and a dishonorable discharge for making the videos. Five more male sailors face charges in the case."
Share Article
Reader Comments (13)
Does anyone know whether Pat Robertson has revealed the reason that God has chosen to smite The Republic of Texas? Nepal I can understand (damn heathens) but why the ROT?
"Today's Existential Question:
Are You Still a Person if You Don't Vote?"
Once upon a time we had millions of people who COULDN'T vote, like women and blacks, because, well, because the former were considered incapable of making political decisions–––motherhood and wifery dulled their minds––while the latter weren't even considered in the same category as human beings of quality. Today our question here pertains to people who are not citizens (yet) but work, pay taxes, raise families, etc. but are not represented and cannot vote therefore are not considered PERSONS if we go the route of NOT counting them as such. The argument should be here how WOULD we classify these persons who are not being considered as such. What indeed!!!
I found the idiots that were disparaging to the AMERICAN Indians who obviously know how to spell pretty well the height of irony and stupidity. I read something like this and I want to guzzle some of that anti=freeze ole Pierce seems to partake in regularly.
Good points. Blacks were counted as 3/5ths persons in our Constitution for a reason: slave states wanted them counted in the number of persons to increase the states' Congressional representation. Thus, the seminal flaw in our Constitution mitigates against the plaintiff's case.
So maybe we can have a confederate compromise & count non-voters -- lazy bastards, immigrants, alien residents, felons deprived of the franchise, children, etc. -- as 3/5ths persons. Wouldn't that be a fitting decision for the Gang Who Wants to Return to the 18th Century?
Marie
Why not one, wealthy, white, Christian male landowner, one vote?
It's useful to take arguments, especially of the porous Confederate variety, and extend them to their logical conclusions, because, as they say, you buy the premise, you buy the joke.
The idea here is to be exclusionary. Any disclaimer to the contrary is complete bullshit.
The Blum initiative seeks to alienate and disenfranchise millions of people. That's the goal here. To restrict power to a certain population group and to transfer even more power to more rural (Confederate) areas.
A good many ideas from the founders were excellent. One not so excellent idea was the apportionment of power in the senate. Perhaps this wasn't such a big problem in 1789, but in 2015, John Barrasso's vote, a wingnut kook from Wyoming who represents about 290,000 people, bears the same weight in national decision making as Barbara Boxer's who represents about 19 million people. Southern and western states most of which have far lower populations than states that lean towards Democrats, have proportionally much more power in the Senate because of this arrangement.
But now the wingnuts want more.
And, to continue our extension of this political philosophy, what Blum and his supporters are saying is that only people who can vote count. They're not concerned with the classical standard of representation meaning the entire population. This means that children under the voting age don't matter either. Under this theory they don't even get the 3/5 of a person assignment that slaves received.
And what's to prevent the so-called originalists to demand in the future that the vote be further restricted? Why not go back to well off, white men who own land? And while they're at it, make that Christian white men who own land. And after that, let's kick out the guys who only own land and make it wealthy white Christian males who own corporations?
After all, to many Confederates, they're the only ones who really matter.
Of course all this should be conjectural fluff, and would be if the Supreme Court hadn't thought this might be a good way to continue their quest to ensure consolidation of Confederate electoral power, without regard to demographics or population groups, far into the future.
How else to guarantee the evolution of American Apartheid?
Well, Jeez, Louise.
I'm with Ms. CW on this one. I had not idea Teh Gays were such badass destruction machines. Before you know it, wingers might be thinking it would be a grand idea to round up a bunch of gays and send them off to fight ISIS. All that badassery would guarantee annihilation of those dirty Mooslim ter'ists within days.
Oh, wait. But what if, instead of fighting ISIS, they turned them all into whining pedophiles bent on the destruction of humanity! Holy shit...that would make them....no...no...I can't say it......
DUGGARS!
Not for the first time I'm having a tad of trouble following Right Wing logic.. but I'll try to sort it out.
On the newest (and as others have pointed out, oldest) hand, you're not a person unless you vote. On the other, you're a person as soon as the sperm and the egg shake hands.
Progressive as I am, I'm all for expanding rights, not shrinking them, so I'll go with the latter definition. Fetal voting rights make sense to me.
Blastocysts unite! There's precedent aplenty for being allowed, even encouraged to vote without a developed brain...
So people who support Bernie Sanders are not everyday (read: average, or "real") Americans, according to Politico.
But the loony tunes who showed up to support serial law breaking moocher Cliven Bundy, weapons locked and loaded and ready to murder government agents are prototypical salt of the earth Americans.
Is that right?
It's interesting that Politico, and plenty of other MSM outlets are having fun referring to Sanders as an unelectable, vaguely suspicious socialist and tossing around references to the "People's Republic of Burlington" as if he's an extremist supported by nuts who have no chance.
And yet, his "extremism" extends pretty much to making sure everyone is treated fairly and that income inequality, perhaps the biggest problem facing us today, is at the very least acknowledged and an attempt to address it hits the table some time soon.
I have yet to hear Politico refer to truly dangerous, and defiantly un-American whackos like Ted Cruz as far-out, unelectable extremists. Cruz, who panders to gun fondlers, supporters of theocracy, corporate hegemons, secessionists, racists, anti-choice screamers, and conspiracy theorists is considered a serious candidate worthy of serious coverage.
W.T.F.
The big difference? It's not justice, or the essential morality of positions, not the ethical underpinnings or even a drizzling of a sort of vague Americanism, that confers legitimacy on one candidacy and a one way ticket to palookaville for the other.
It's money. Ted Cruz knows this. Hillary Clinton knows this. And Bernie Sanders knows it too. But he's the only one trying to do something about it.
Which makes him the dangerous extremist. And that's what we'll hear from all the MSM outlets from now until Republicans steal their last vote. When, and if, he loses, the monied interests and their lackeys will toast each other with a glass of Henri Jayer Grand Cru (1969, natch). Hopefully, they'll still be half in the bag when Elizabeth Warren is ready to step into the ring.
If all of the embryos frozen in liquid nitrogen in IVF clinics were counted as citizens for the purpose of congressional apportionment, we might see a dramatic increase in the number of such clinics in the Old Confuderacy (sic). But then God might smite... Oh Hell... I can't figure it out.
Ken,
Great idea, man. The GOP will definitely support this initiative. Oh wait there could be some problems though. What about all the ID's needed? Will a sonagram of three or four cells be sufficient as a photo ID to allow the proto-person to vote? What if they're challenged by gun toting Confederate thugs outside the polls? How can they prove they haven't already voted at seven other places? Mothers will have to wear tracking devices which will allow the thugs to trace their steps via GPS recording.
This could get messy.
Best way out is to assume that all unborn cells will vote Republican and be done with it. So even black and brown and immigrant babies will have the vote.
Until they're born, that is.
Like Barney Frank used to say, the Right is all about supporting and nurturing you from the time you're conceived until the day you're born. After that, you're on your own.
I have always admired Mark Ruffalo's acting ability, but now I admire him as someone who speaks out not only on women's issues, but on climate change. Here's a guy who knows how to shame these twitter anti-feminists and tell them to kiss his ass. Love it!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/27/1387990/-Mark-Ruffalo-My-Response-To-I-Am-Not-A-Feminist?detail=emailtest
@Ken–––perfect!!!!!
I'm pretty sure that there are intervening decisions that may alter the interpretation of this, but here's what the 14th Amendment Sec 2 says about apportionment:
"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed,[6] But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male[7] inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,[8] and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."
I don't see how you can think that "the whole number of persons" can be read to mean "people who vote."
Patrick,
Thanks.
I would think your logic is impeccable. Makes eminent sense to me. As I said earlier, it's Right Wing logic I'm unable to follow.
But your post raises an issue I had never thought of before. How does the age-specific apportionment section of Amendment XIV mesh with Amendment XXVI?
I'm guessing XXVI would override it and that to do so would have to be based on appropriately tweaked census data...
Now I'm wondering if there's ever been an occasion when that part of Section 2 has been enforced?