Political Review

The Wacky 9th Circuit

2006-05-18T16:00:00.000-04:00

In a decision handed down during the month of April, the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals greatly diminished the means by which the homeless could be removed from an infamous stretch of several downtown blocks in the City of Los Angeles. The lunacy of this decision makes abundantly clear the disregard for any notion of private property in the region encompassed by the 9th Circuit; the businesses in front of which these squatters often take residence are adversely affected and possess minimal, if any, apparent recourse. The Judiciary's usurpation of its intended role seems increasingly on display. John C. Eastman, of the Claremont Institute and Chapman University, has written a persuasive essay on the Judiciary's encroachment: Summer 2005 edition of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (I don't have the link at present time). The Opinion of the 9th Circuit (Jones v. City of LA)

Judge Alito

2005-10-31T07:00:00.000-05:00

As is now widely reported, Judge Samuel Alito will be nominated to the Supreme Court by President Bush. Many have called him "Scalito" or "Scalia Light." Democratic Leader Harry Reid has already voiced his opposition; the foresight Reid possesses is rather uncanny, given that he has already given the nominee a thorough vetting (Right). It appears as though he is a staunch conservative. The following are some of his more controversial opinions:

Shore Regional High School Board of Education v. P.S.
Williams v. Price
Saxe v. State College Area School District
ACLU v. Schundler

Steele For Senate

2005-10-23T21:00:00.000-04:00

This Tuesday, October 25th, at 11:15 AM, Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele will announce his candidacy for Senate. He will be running to replace Senator Sarbanes. It appears as though his likely opponent will be Ben Cardin, who is a Democratic Congressman hailing from the 3rd District of Maryland. Recent polling indicates that this will be a very close race. Go Lt. Governor Steele!

Fall of the Leader

2005-10-21T22:26:00.000-04:00

Years of unethical behavior and the abuse of power have finally caught up with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Representative DeLay was forced to temporarily step down from his post as Majority Leader as a consequence of being criminally indicted on September 28th, and again on October 3rd. As Delay fights charges of wrongdoing, Missouri Congressman Roy Blunt has temporarily taken over the post of Majority Leader. House Republicans should consider whether or not they want Tom DeLay to return as their leader, and voters should question whether or not a man of such questionable integrity should represent them in the United States House of Representatives.

Tom DeLay has been known as “The Hammer” since his days as Majority Whip, where he strictly controlled his Republican majority in order to get legislation passed. However, it was in this spirit of doing anything for the strengthening of his party that. DeLay overstepped his bounds on numerous occasions. It was this mentality that earned Tom DeLay a criminal indictment.

The September 28th indictment against Tom DeLay lists charges of conspiracy to violate Texas state election law and money laundering. DeLay contends that he violated no law, and that Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who has been investigating DeLay for close to three years, is nothing more than an “unabashed partisan zealot.” To reinforce that point, DeLay’s attorneys filed suit on the grounds that the state election laws he allegedly violated did not exist in 2002, making it unconstitutional to charge him for violating the then non-existent laws. Earle responded by bringing the case before a new grand jury, and getting a new indictment on October 3rd for money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

Both indictments finger DeLay and two of his business associates, each of whom run one of DeLay’s two political action committees. John Colyandro is Executive Director of Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC), the organization directly implicated in the indictment. James Ellis is a consultant to TRMPAC and the Executive Director of Americans for a Republican Majority PAC. These two men stand the greatest chance of criminal prosecution. Both Colyandro and Ellis were directly involved in the chain of command of the implicated organization, making them legally culpable for their organization’s actions. However, the case against Tom DeLay will depend on whether or not Ronnie Earle can provide evidence that DeLay offered advice or instructions to Ellis or Colyandro in their alleged money laundering scheme.

While hard evidence against Tom DeLay seems lacking thus far, the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. DeLay’s motives for the alleged money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering lie in the process of redistricting. Every ten years the Census is taken in order to, among other things, determine the changes in concentration of the population. In accordance with Census findings, state legislatures are given the responsibility of re-drawing Congressional districts. Of course this is a highly partisan issue, and the majority party in the state legislature draws districts that are most favorable to their own party. In Texas in 1990, with a Democrat majority in the state legislature, districts were drawn that favored the election of Democrats to the House. Attempts to significantly re-draw these lines in 2000 failed, as neither party had a majority in the legislature. As the 2002 elections approached, it was in Tom DeLay’s interest to ensure a republican majority in the Texas legislature. So DeLay allegedly arranged for money to flow illegally to Republican candidates for the legislature.

Under a decades-old Texas law, it is illegal for corporations to contribute money to any candidate for state legislature. Allegedly to circumvent this law, DeLay used Texans for a Republican Majority PAC to launder money. TRMPAC received contributions from corporations, including Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Bacardi, USA. On September 13, 2002, two months before Texas’ state election, TRMPAC issued a blank check signed by John Colyandro to consultant James Ellis. Ellis then issued a check for $190,000 to the Republican National State Elections Committee (RNSEC), along with a list of Republican candidates for the Texas State Legislature that were to be given donations. On October 2nd, DeLay met privately with James Ellis in his Capital Hill office. Two days later, the RNSEC donated to the campaigns of those seven specified candidates. As a result, five of the seven candidates won their races, giving Republicans a majority in the Texas State Legislature in 2002. The legislature proceeded to re-draw Congressional districts that heavily favored Republican candidates.

Although this is the most egregious of Tom DeLay’s many ethical missteps, it is certainly not his only one. In the last year alone, DeLay has been admonished by the House Committee on Official Conduct on two separate occasions. In a still developing story, DeLay even appears to be involved with embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

On September 30, 2004 the Committee admonished DeLay for offering to “personally endorse” the House candidacy of the son of Representative Nick Smith (R – MI) in exchange for Smith’s vote in favor of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003. This violates the House rule barring House members to “offer…support for the personal interests of another member…to achieve legislative goals.”

The second violation of House rules was reported in an October 6, 2004 memo sent to the members of the Committee on Official Conduct. In May 2003, after DeLay helped to engineer the Republican takeover of the Texas legislature, the legislature met to re-draw Congressional districts. Of course, Democrats in the legislature were none too pleased, and a number of them promptly left the state in order to deny quorum, thus making it impossible for the legislature to conduct business. State Representative Pete Laney used his airplane to fly some of his fellow Democratic Representatives to Oklahoma. This infuriated Tom DeLay, who got the identification number on Laney’s plane, and requested that the FAA track it, violating a House rule prohibiting the use of “governmental resources [the FAA] for a political undertaking.”

Tom DeLay clearly will do anything for the Republican party. While it may be a boon to Republicans to have a man so dedicated to helping their agenda, it is a mark of shame that the furthering of the party agenda supersedes the upholding of ethical standards and the law. The recent indictment is just the latest in a long pattern of questionable ethical behavior on the part of DeLay: in the last year alone, he has been admonished by the House Committee on Official Conduct on two separate occasions. Voters and House Republicans alike should send a clear message that the actions and attitudes of Representative Tom DeLay will not be tolerated.

Hawaiian Separatism, Part Deux

2005-10-20T22:00:00.000-04:00

“To pursue the concept of racial entitlement - even for the most admirable and benign of purposes - is to reinforce and preserve for future mischief the way of thinking that produced race slavery, race privilege and race hatred. In the eyes of government, we are just one race here. It is American.” [Justice Scalia, concurring in ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. v. PENA, (1995)]

The United States has witnessed more than its fair share of racial injustices. A violent and extremely costly Civil War ended slavery; The Civil Rights Movement, nearly a century later, fought for black equality, with the desired result being a nation where, in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., individuals would be judged not “by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” A government that is color-blind is not completely at hand; however, those who seek to reintroduce racial distinctions into law as a way of ameliorating the country’s movement towards equality are misguided. Alarmingly, a bill is pending before the United States Senate that would reverse decades of progress. Dubbed “the Akaka Bill” (S. 147) after its sponsor, Senator Akaka (D-HI), this piece of stealth legislation is formally known as the “Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005.” The Akaka Bill essentially would form a separate, quasi-sovereign Native Hawaiian governing entity. While many have likened this measure to various American Indian or Native Alaskan tribal arrangements, the Akaka Bill bases membership in this independent governing body solely on race; that is, so long as one has a single drop of “Native Hawaiian” blood, one is eligible to be a subject of this Native Hawaiian government.

The Akaka Bill bases many of its historical underpinnings on the 1993 “Apology Resolution.” The 103rd Congress passed the “Apology Resolution” on the 100th anniversary of the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarch, Queen Liliuokalani; the purpose of the resolution was to express regret for the United States government’s purported role in the bloodless overthrow. Nevertheless, the Akaka Bill perpetuates a myth that was conceived in the “Apology Resolution”: the Hawaiian Monarchy, from its inception in 1810 to its overthrow in 1893, was a racially exclusive government. That notion is resoundingly false. As early as 1844, King Kamehameha III appointed an American as the Kingdom’s Attorney General. At the beginning of the 19th century, the Hawaiian people comprised many native-born and naturalized subjects who were not “Native Hawaiians”—including Americans, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Samoans, Portuguese, Scandinavians, Scots, Germans, Puerto Ricans, and Greeks. All of those various races, per se, were equal subjects of the monarch; in fact, in 1887 and thereafter, non-citizen residents could serve in the legislature. At the time of the monarch’s overthrow, the legislature was multiracial.

The explicit racial qualifications for the Akaka Bill are likely so broad as to be unconstitutional. More specifically, in order to qualify as Native Hawaiian, one must be an “indigenous, native [person] of Hawaii” and be a “direct lineal descendant of the aboriginal, indigenous, native people” who resided on the Hawaiian Islands on or before January 1, 1893 and “exercised sovereignty.” Unfortunately, the only Native Hawaiian to “exercise sovereignty” was the monarch. In addition to being historically dubious, the Supreme Court has recently ruled that treating Native Hawaiians as an Indian tribe was “difficult terrain” and “a matter of some dispute.” In fact, in Rice v. Cayetano (2000) the Supreme Court struck down an effort to establish a state-sanctioned, race-based entity composed solely of Native Hawaiians. The Court found this to violate the Fifteenth Amendment, which forbids racial discrimination in voting. In a related Supreme Court ruling, United States v. Felipe Sandoval (1913), the Court held that an Indian community must be “separate and isolated,” and that Congress cannot arbitrarily designate a group as an Indian tribe, even if the people are racially comparable to Indians.

The Secretary of the Interior has a longstanding set of criteria regarding the designation of an Indian tribe. Federal Regulations 25 C.F.R. §§ 83.6-83.7 outline the guidelines that must be considered in order for an Indian group to be recognized as a tribe. The Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan congressional think tank, summarizes the law into the following four conditions:

• “Existence as an Indian tribe on a continuous basis since 1900. Evidence may include documents showing that governmental authorities — federal, state, or local — have identified it as an Indian group; identification by anthropologists and scholars; and evidence from newspapers and books.”
• “Existence predominantly as a community. This may be established by geographical residence of 50% of the group; marriage patterns; kinship and language patterns; cultural patterns; and social or religious patterns.”
• “Political influence or authority over members as an autonomous entity from historical times until the present. This may be established by showing evidence of leaders’ ability to mobilize the group or settle disputes, inter-group communication links, and active political processes.”
• “Evidence that the membership descends from an historical tribe or tribes that combined and functioned together as a political entity. This may be established by tribal rolls, federal or state records, church or school records, affidavits of leaders and members, and other
records.”

The Akaka Bill ignores the general principles extrapolated from these directives: the group must be separate and distinct as well as a preexisting political organization. Neither of these principles is satisfied in the context of Native Hawaiians. Native Hawaiians intermarried as early as the 1820s; in the mid-1990s, three-quarters of “only” Native Hawaiians married outside of their race, and fifty-percent of “part” Native Hawaiians also intermarried. On the whole, the state’s intermarriage rate is 45 percent, which is ten times the national average of 4.5 percent. As a result of intermarriage, scholars estimate that only 7,000 “pure blooded” Native Hawaiians are alive today.

The melting pot that exists in Hawaii is reason enough to see the thoughtlessness of the Akaka Bill. The bill fails the test of a separate and distinct community. The bill also contains additional flaws. It fails to guarantee that the Bill of Rights applies to the Native Hawaiian governing organization. Nor does the Akaka Bill guarantee that the entity will be democratic in nature. Furthermore, the Akaka Bill, which is highly controversial, does not allow for a statewide plebiscite. Such a measured political calculation is hypocritical, given that those who are supporting this legislation cite the absence of a plebiscite at the time of Queen Liliuokalani’s overthrow as a grievance.

So exactly what political repercussions will such a racially backward proposed law have? The proponents of S.147 do not want to candidly discuss the idea of eventual independence. The State of Hawaii’s Office of Hawaiian Affairs, however, states in a section on their website, titled: How Will Federal Recognition Affect Me:

“While the federal recognition bill authorizes the formation of a Native Hawaiian governing entity, the bill itself does not prescribe the form of government this entity will become. S. 344 [the bill number in the108th Congress] creates the process for the establishment of the Native Hawaiian governing entity and a process for federal recognition. TheNative Hawaiian people may exercise their right to self-determination by selecting another form of government including free association ortotal independence.”

This bill embraces an extreme racial doctrine. It simply serves to perpetuate the political power of its advocates and to pervert our political system for the sole benefit of special interests. Unfortunately, though, passage is likely. The Justice Department has made clear its concerns regarding parts of the bill’s language. Those concerns have since been placated by the Hawaiian delegation by altering the bill’s language; however, these amendments do not quantifiably effect the bill’s implications. It is likely to pass in the Senate; Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Norm Coleman (R-MN) are cosponsors of S. 147. In fact, two other Republicans have cosponsored S. 147; although their motives are more discernable. Senators Stevens and Murkowski, both of whom hail from Alaska, are supporting the Akaka Bill in return for the Hawaiian Delegation’s support for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The only remaining hope is the House of Representatives, but a similar law was passed several years ago only to be rejected in the Senate.

The Akaka Bill would create by far the largest indigenous “tribe” in the nation. There are an estimated 400,000 Native Hawaiians spread throughout the United States who would be eligible for membership in such a government; 100,000 of those Native Hawaiians live outside of Hawaii, but would still be entitled to membership. Given Hawaii’s population of 1.5 million, the 20% of Native Hawaiians living on the Island would pose a seriously divisive dynamic to an otherwise harmonious melting pot. Native Hawaiians have not segregated themselves, nor have others segregated them. They live in neighborhoods alongside a variety of different races. The idea of ethnic separatism is upsetting to a plurality of those who it is supposed to help. According to a poll conducted by the Grassroots Institute of Hawaii, 48% of Native Hawaiians oppose the Akaka Bill; whereas, two-thirds of the general Hawaiian population are against the measure. In 1959, when the issue of Hawaii’s statehood was put to a statewide vote, it was approved by 94% of those who voted. Such a resounding gesture of consent cannot be overlooked. The Akaka Bill embraces a racial spoils system that would poison the very progress that this nation has made concerning equality.

Katrina Relief

2005-08-31T17:45:00.000-04:00

Katrina Relief Organizations
FEMA's List
Corporate Donations
Before and After Nasa Pictures

War of Ideologies

2005-08-27T22:00:00.000-04:00

The war for hearts and minds in the War on Terror is as important, if not more, than the tactical military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. While there isn't extensive data profiling the varying views of the Muslim Street, a recent Pew Global Attitudes Project gives us a better idea of current trends in predominately Muslim countries. The pervasive fear of Islamic extremism is no longer just a Western phenomenon, but exists in Pakistan, Morocco, and Turkey. In Pakistan 52% believe Islamic extremism poses a threat, whereas only 27% view it as a non-factor; in Morocco the fear is higher yet, with 73% of citizens believing extremist forces pose a direct threat. A smaller plurality in Turkey (47%) see Islamic extremism as a threat; only 34% of the population disagree with such an assertion.

The erosion of support for violence against civilians in most Muslim countries bodes well for U.S. efforts in the region. Strong majorities in Indonesia (66%), Turkey (66%), and Morocco (79%) do not condone such atrocities, while a large plurality in Lebanon (33%) and a near-majority in Pakistan (47%) abhor such violence. One should note the huge drop in support for such acts "sometimes" in Lebanon (a 34% drop); Syrian occupation of Lebanon left the country strongly opposed to mindless violence perpetrated against innocents.

In addition to a decline in support of suicide bombings, the perceived feasibility of democracy by Muslims is increasing. In Pakistan 48% believe democracy can work; in Lebanon 83% believe democracy can work; in Jordan 80% believe democracy can work; this widespread openness to democracy in Islamic countries starkly exemplifies all human beings profoundly desire liberty and that America's efforts in Iraq will be successful, regardless of temporary constitutional setbacks.

While these developments in isolated cases do not illustrate a general improvement in the Muslim world, taken in the aggregate one can't help but be encouraged. The universal human propensity to freedom is increasingly becoming apparent. American efforts in the region, Iraq especially, should be supported. The Muslim street's widespread condemnation of suicide attacks on civilians and general fear, ergo rejection, of Islamic extremism should be reason to achieve a stable democracy in Iraq, not to mention the continual support of Afghanistan.

Hawaiian Separatism

2005-08-25T22:00:00.000-04:00

The senate will vote for cloture on S-147, dubbed The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005, on Sept. 6th. This bill should be opposed for the sake of the fifteenth amendment, not to mention the welfare of the Native Hawaiian population. See Senator Kyl's (R-AZ) essay from the Republican Policy Committee, here. It outlines not only the negative policy considerations, but also the unconstitutionality of the measure.