Progressive America: Reflections on Obama's Second Inaugural

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm really not sure how and to what extent President Obama will follow through on the progressive commitments he made in his Second Inaugural yeterday, but there's no denying that his vision was clear and that his rhetoric was in the right place.

Of course he has often been criticized by those of us on the left for not being enough of a man of the left, enough of a leader for progressive change, and deservedly so. Too often he has been a leader, or follower, of of the Beltway center, the compromiser willing to sell out core progressive principles for the sake of getting a deal done, too often willing to give in to an opposition that itself has no interest in working with him in good faith.

And yet there is hope as he embarks now on his second term.

And it is possible, just possible, that he will do for the left what Reagan did for the right, that he will indeed be, or at least try to be, the transformative figure many of us know he can be.

This was a speech of substance, unlike Bush Jr.'s second, which promised a global crusade but had nothing to back it up. It was a speech about America, about what America is -- what it was meant to be, what it has become, what it can be. It was a speech that proudly articulated a liberal-progressive understanding of America, and of America's promise, in stark contrast to the conservative view that has, in large part thanks to Reagan, come to dominate, and corrupt, the American politico-historical narrative.

This is America, the president said, a liberal America, a progressive America. A great deal has been accomplished in the face of steadfast, regressive opposition, and a lot remains to be done, but, yes, there is hope, hope grounded in the progressive vision of the Founders and in the accomplishments that have defined a nation.

Read more »

Assault weapons ban?

By Frank Moraes 

Ed. note: Frank thinks I might disagree with him here, if only because he's shifting the argument away from assault weapons. I don't. While I do think assault weapons, which to me are weapons of mass destruction, ought to be banned, there ought to be broader gun control that includes restrictions on handguns as well as substantial waiting periods, among other things. Actually, I'm all for going much further than that, but I realize you have to be realistic if you want to get anything done. There's just no way the U.S. is about to enact the comprehensive gun legislation I'd prefer.

My only quibble with Frank's post is with his second footnote. To me, the Second Amendment does apply only to militias, not to private individuals, except insofar as it was assumed at the time that in the absence of a standing army militias would be made up of private individuals. ("If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country,..." wrote Hamilton in Federalist 29.) Just because the Supreme Court has interpreted it a certain way over time doesn't mean that interpretation is the right one, or that Madison et al. meant it that way.

As Justice Stevens wrote in his dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): 

The Amendment's text does justify a different limitation: the "right to keep and bear arms" protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase "bear arms" to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as "for the defense of themselves." 

The Framers knew what they were doing. And if they'd meant to enshrine an individual's right to bear arms in the Constitution, they would have said so.

The distortion of the Framers' intent in this regard is one of the most blatant ways conservatives have imposed their right-wing ideology on America.

-- MJWS

**********

Greg Sargent's The Plum Line blog is quickly becoming my favorite Washington Post reading, which is to say I turn to it more often than Ezra Klein's excellent Wonk Blog. Sargent just seems to write more about the stuff I'm interested in. Klein writes a lot more about economics, but I'm afraid I read a good deal too much economics elsewhere. Anyway. This morning Sargent was focused on gun control.

He noted a couple of articles about where the White House is regarding an assault weapons ban. The New York Times claims that they are planning to dump it and focus on background checks and high capacity magazines. But Sam Stein claims they are still pushing the ban on these guns.

I think the focus on assault weapons is misplaced. I understand that they look scary. On a recent trip to Mexico, seeing all the military with these kinds of guns was intimidating. But like syringes with drug addiction, they are just provocative and indicative, not the problem itself. To me, the thing that I most associate with assault rifles are the 30-round banana clips.

Read more »

Craziest Republican of the Day: Rick Perry, for blaming Satan and the '60s for the separation of church and state

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Some crazy moron.

Remember when it looked like Rick Perry had a good shot at the Republican nomination? Given how widely unpopular Romney was, and given that at the time the conservative banner was being carried by Michele Bachmann, Perry was looked upon a savior even before he entered the race in August of last year.

It didn't take long for that bubble to burst, with Perry embarrassing himself on the national stage and generally looking worse and worse as time went by.

But again... it could have been Perry, who still looks and sounds the part, if only he'd managed not to come across as such an extremist moron / moronic extremist.

Then again, that may not be possible, hence his downfall. And in case you need more evidence, he's back in the news this week being as mind-bogglingly stupid as ever:

In a conference call with fellow evangelicals earlier this week, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) shared his thoughts on the origins of the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. Rather than tracing the idea to the nation's founders, Perry warned of a more nefarious source: Satan.

"Satan runs across the world with his doubt and with his untruths and what have you and one of the untruths out there that is driven is that people of faith should not be involved in the public arena," Perry said during the call on Tuesday, organized by the Rev. Rick Scarborough.

Perry said the separation of religious and civic institutions in the U.S. began with a "narrative" that first took root in the 1960s.

Well, he's an right-wing evangelical theocrat, so none of this should come as much of a surprise. But while the Satan line is silly enough, it would also seem that Perry knows nothing of Jefferson and the Founders and U.S. history and a certain key document known as the United States Constitution.

I mean... really? He blames it on the '60s? What, on the hippies? Is he really that stupid?

Well... yes. And you know what? The Republicans really should have picked him. He's just their kind of guy.

The fathers of our dysfunction

By tmcbpatriot

Are we bored yet? These stories of massacres by white kids with heavy weapons always leaves us numb and totally desensitized. It happens so often that we don't even have time to process the previous one. Add to that a non-stop news cycle at break-neck speed and by the weekend we are already looking for the next big story.

In fact, we are already so bored by what happened in Colorado that last week CNN posted a video online of the massacre in 3D, just to remind us. I wish I was kidding. If you click on the link, you are a braver person than I, because, quite frankly, I do not want to see it. Not as a cartoon and not in fu**ing 3D!

But by this week, after all (most?) of the dead are buried and their families and friends are left to deal with their unimaginable loss, we will go back to our lives, the presidential election, the new judge on Idol, and whatever else has not even happened yet. It is what we do. Sure, there will still be stories about gun owners fighting with anti-gun folks over their "rights," Ted Nugent will continue to say stupid sh*t as usual, and anti-gun activists will still be protesting somewhere. But by this week the shock and awe of Aurora will all be over and nothing will have changed, because nothing ever does.

Why? Because our Constitution makes it so. It is as close to the Bible as we have to a religious document while not actually being one. And no matter how convoluted and totally misinterpreted our "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is, as long as the NRA continues to shape national policy, as long as the gun-and-ammo industry continues making billions off of our collective fear and paranoia and their interest in allowing insane people to use their weapons as viral marketing campaigns to show off their effectiveness, nothing is going to change, ever.

That is to say, nothing except for our fear of yet another place that used to be fun. Where will it be next? Disney World? A Lollapalooza festival? The Taste of Chicago? A baseball game? It is only a matter of time before everything we ever knew as being fun, as a night out, as an afternoon with the kids, turns into bedlam and more bloodshed because of long-dead, power-hungry, war-thirsty, extremists in tight stockings who thought it would be a good idea to write into our Constitution a right to own weapons to protect against an enemy they apparently believed would be around forever.

Well, turns out their foresight and omniscience was spot on because we still do have an enemy. Only, the enemy, it turns out, is ourselves and our ever growing desire to own insane weapons that would have blown the minds of the Founders. Perhaps, if they truly were forward-thinking, as many claim they were, they would have at least have put in some footnote, some caveat to the Second Amendment that said something like: "In the event that weapons one day become so powerful and so deadly on a mass scale as to be used against our own citizens and not in a time of war, than that other thing we said about the right to bear arms, you can just cancel that part."

Seems they forgot to put that in because I looked and it's not in there. It just says over and over again about our right to own weapons. Good thing it said nothing about the right to bear medicine or we would now all be on heroine, bath salts, and LSD during work hours.

Makes me wonder though, how would the "Founding Fathers" feel today knowing how it all turned out? Would they feel remorse, regret, a need to apologize to the future generations who have been put in harm's way and killed just because they went to the movies? Nah. I think they would be, and were, no different than the politicians we know today, except perhaps with less hygiene and a more visible need for a dentist.

Thing is, some things never change -- like the need for votes from ignorant, frightened men and politicians who see the Second Amendment as a sure way to get their support. It is a trick as old as the paper our Constitution is written on and as a result our excuse to be irresponsible and deadly while hiding behind daddy, who said it was okay. But daddy is long gone and he left us to mind the store with no real instruction about how to do it or how to deal with the mounting psychological debt that is piling up faster than we, or they, could have imagined.

What happened in Aurora and elsewhere and what will continue to happen all over the country from now till forever, is truly the lasting legacy of the Founders who, from the grave, are still able to wreak havoc and pain upon a weak and fragile constituency that looked to them for guidance but instead got what politicians of any age have been delivering for time immemorial: irresponsible, empty promises in return for power. The future be damned!

(Cross-posted at Take My Country Back.)

When it comes to democratic self-governance, it seems a lot of Americans are deeply anti-American

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From Dan Amira at Daily Intel:

For most of us, the idea that "governments derive their only just powers from the consent of the governed," a central tenet of the Declaration of Independence (a.k.a., the reason you're not working tomorrow), is taken as a given. But a surprisingly large contingent of Americans — 13 percent, according to Rasmussen — disagrees with that philosophy, apparently preferring tyrannical governments which wield power over their people through terror and violence. They must be very disappointed by all those elections we're having all the time! Another 17 percent are "undecided," which probably just means they couldn't follow the question and/or zoned out.

Actually, it's likely that most of those 13 percent think that governments derive their very legitimacy from God -- you know, the residue of that whole "Divine Right of Kings" nonsense that was big way back when and still finds a home among theocratic conservatives, and particularly with the American Taliban that is so powerful in the Republican Party.

(And by God, of course, I mean "God.")

Yes, that would be the party with all those self-defined "patriots" who talk up the Founders, including those who thought the Declaration was a truly revolutionary document (which is was) inbued with the spirit of the Enlightenment, as do-no-wrong demigods -- yes, those self-appointed defenders of what they think is the American Way but is actually the opposite.

Actually, I'm surprised the number isn't larger. There are a lot of born-again theocrats out there, and a lot of ignorance all throughout America. But perhaps a lot of respondents, more than 17 percent, found the question a tad too taxing for their mushy minds.

Whatever the case, the Founders, who possessed not just a profound understanding of history but a firm commitment to the Enlightenment and the possibility of human progress, would likely be rather disappointed that so many Americans, well over two centuries after they launched their revolution of democratic governance, don't understand what they did -- nor what America truly means.

This day in history - July 11, 1804: Former Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton is mortally wounded in a duel

By Richard K. Barry

The duel in question was between Hamilton and Vice President Aaron Burr. It took place on July 11, 1804, and Hamilton, having been shot in the lower abdomen above the right hip, died the next day.

The cause of the duel was, of course, some sort of affront to Burr's honor, which required that he receive what I think they called in the day "satisfaction." All in all, it ended badly for Hamilton.

I thought the item interesting this week in particular because Hamilton was the first United States Secretary of the Treasury.

I note that he was involved in 1790 in writing something called the First Report on the Public Credit, which analyzed the financial standing of the United States of America and made recommendations for the retirement of the national debt.

Hmmm. What advice would Hamilton offer our national leaders today on the debt ceiling as one who worked so hard to ensure that the debt and honor of his fledging country would be secured following the American Revolution and the debt incurred to conduct it?

I'll bet Glenn Beck could tell me.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Passion play

By Capt. Fogg

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

___________

If you managed to get through grade school, you've read this many times, but it never seems to influence the way Americans act or feel: a syndrome that seems more influenced by mob psychology and sectarian chauvinism than anything else. Of course, it's long been this way and we've long been a xenophobic and gullible nation, but with the advent of round-the-clock swineherds like Fox News, the grunting and squealing of feral-hog America is drowning out the voice of our founding fathers and of decent men and women everywhere. 

[E]ven if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service. (Ben Franklin) 

The same folks who want to persecute Muslims for their religion and prohibit the free exercise thereof will assert, without twitching their nostrils at the smell of hypocrisy, that this is a Christian nation and that Christian laws, whatever they might be, supersede our national laws about abortion, birth control, spending government funds on Christian activities, and browbeating children into theological submission. It's not okay that a Muslim man doesn't want to drink alcohol or a Jew doesn't want to eat pork, but it's fine that a Christian pharmacist refuses to dispense condoms. Damn the Constitution, we're a Christian nation. The laws of other religions need not apply, and, in fact, although there is no chance whatever that the United States will adopt the Qur'an as a replacement for the Constitution and its body of laws, it's not enough for the grunting pigs of God who would like to make the free exercise of Islam illegal. 

He was despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. (Isaiah 53:3) 

The latest crusade seems to be about portraying every comment by every Muslim as an example of Sharia, from a cabby in Detroit asking that he not be forced to transport alcohol to someone praying in Arabic in front of the White House. According to one witness, he was asking for a blessing on those "Christians" who seemed oblivious to the staggering irony of a mob mocking and cursing a bearded man, bent in prayer, forgiving them for persecuting him. None of this has anything to do with any effort to replace our laws and courts with Islamic laws or Islamic judges, nor can it since no effort exists. As to the rules of private observance, let's let only Christians do that! The only credible attempt of theocratic pretenders to the throne is of course by self-styled Christians, as the porcine squeals of the glossolalians Palin and Huckabee would prove. 

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen... (George Washington) 

Perhaps it's fortunate that such people are stupid enough to hoist themselves with their own petty petards. You'll recall, and perhaps with a smile, Oklahoma's attempt to thwart the non-existent Islamic takeover by attempting a tin-foil-hat law banning all religious commands -- which in effect banned the Jewish commandments they had been trying to insert into American life, but we can't afford to depend on their congenital stupidity when so much is at stake. And yes, it takes a stupid man to think that somehow Americans would decide to write Sharia or Islamic tribal practices into American law in open defiance of the Constitution or that the tiny percentage of Muslim Americans would somehow magically or accidentally do it by themselves.

The courts have decisively ruled that the establishment and free exercise clauses forbid the federal and state governments to prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion or atheism. The Torah, the Bible, the Qur'an, the Gita, the works of Nietzsche: state or federal government may not adopt any of them as preferable, much less mandatory. But we're a little people, a silly people -- greedy, barbarous, and cruel people, if I might borrow from T.E. Lawrence -- and a cowardly, ignorant, and hateful people as well. "Conservative" legislators continue and will persist in thriving on our traditional sins by inventing threats that must be countered by measures to accelerate our inexorable descent into loserhood. They'll continue to demonize the way their predecessors demonized German, Irish, Italian, Mexican, African, Catholic, Jewish, Chinese, and Indian immigrants, and history will continue to prove them wrong.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

How about a real government for the people?

By Distributorcap

We thought it was bad when Bush was in charge, but just look at the simpletons running the House of Representatives now. It's Titticut Follies meets Duck Soup.

Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, and the entire new crop of teabagging dingbats like Rand Paul and the freshmen reps give new meaning to the Peter Principle. Face it, we have a completely broken government put in power by a completely broken electoral system.

It is really time Americans took a hard look at our system and organization of government (which we won't) and change the things that are driving us into the cesspool (which of course we won't). For over 200 years we have basically followed the principles and doctrines of the founding fathers -- Madison, Jefferson, Adams, and all the other 18th-century scholars. Stability in the process of law has been our strength. It might now also be one of our greatness weaknesses. Plus, it is the 21st century, and most Americans are barely treated as 3/5 of a person.

The Amendments

So grounded are we in NOT changing, there have only been 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution in over 200 years. Of the 27, some are not really laws to govern by but rather corrections to flaws and issues stemming from the original document.

The 18th and 21st amendments deal with prohibition (which in reality had nothing to do with government) and negate each other. The 23rd (electoral representation for D.C.) and the 19th (giving women the right to vote) are corrections to obvious flaws. One can argue the 20th (which deals with term-end dates), the 24th (poll taxes), and the 25th (presidential succession) are really just clarifications of early laws. And finally the last amendment, the 27th (congressional compensation), has nothing to do with the rule of law. That leaves 19 amendments that have dealt with shifting times and a more complex country. One could even argue that the 13th amendment, which abolished slavery, is not an amendment to govern but a correction to a horrible mistake. Many racists Republicans are gunning to get rid of the 14th.

And guess what, with so few changes to an ideology established in a period that bears little relationship to an era of instant information in a shrinking world, our government continues to detract from its original aspiration and devolve into an incredibly dysfunctional body. Sure, a large chunk of people (like the right wing and others) will say our Constitution is the single greatest document laying down the basis for the single greatest political system ever (it is not; it allowed George Bush to be elected). So how dare we tinker with it. Well, arrogance knows no bounds from people unwilling or unable to adjust to the world as it is. That attitude and a quarter gets you more worthless American currency and more Congressmen like Jim DeMint and Louis Gohmert.

Here is my two cents: The Constitution (and the political process) ain't working. It needs an extreme makeover. Think Joan Rivers. There are those who do not want change: those in power (who are more and more looking like a bunch of less and less intelligent media whores) and the (allegedly non-ideological) media, both of whom have very little incentive to alter the structure that put/keeps them in power in the first place. Almost anyone in government today (from all political bents) would poo-poo any suggestion of major constitutional rewrites. But to survive as a viable and thriving society in a world of diminishing resources, floundering leadership, and increased divisiveness, we must consider moderation to the very fundamentals that brought us to the place we are at. Change or die. Survival of the fittest.

Here are some of my thoughts – food for discussion. They are not wrong or right, just some ideas on improving a broken (yes, broken, dilapidated, and now dangerous) system.

Elections

First I will say that I wish we had the parliamentary form of government like Canada, Britain, or Australia, where the party in power chooses the leader of government and can also fall from power before the end of the term. There are tons of pluses and minuses to this form of government. But for now I will work within the basic confines of the current government structure.

All elections should be held on Sunday (don't give me the lame excuses of Church or religion or the day of rest -- almost every other nation in the world votes on a weekend, and most churches today are political hotbeds anyway), so yhat people could vote and not worry about the kids at school or getting time off from work. Or if that doesn't suit you, have a two-day election Saturday and Sunday. EVERY polling place in the nation has the same equipment, all with paper trails. If you want early mail-in voting, fine. For the presidential elections, all polls close at the same time, 12 midnight ET, 9 pm PT, 6 pm in Alaska and Hawaii -- one day every four years is not too much to ask of a late-night election. This Tuesday nonsense is, well, nonsense and utterly ridiculous.

The campaigns go on way too long – they really become more of a turnoff and often evolve into a mudslinging anger-fest right out of As The World Turns. The 2012 campaign has been in full force for nearly a year (just watch any cable show and the handicapping is in full bloom). Stopping candidates from early or long campaigning is impossible and fraught with free speech implications, but you can limit advertising and debates to a narrow period of time. (I realize there are major freedom of speech issues with this as well, but what is more important, an honest debate or permanent campaigns to ensure pundits have a job?) The primary process sucks. It is long, expensive, and cumbersome. It should be divided into four regional super-primaries instead of a six-month drawn-out media party. The primaries should be about the candidates and issues, not about what the media wants in terms of covering the candidates and the issues (there is a big difference). Plus, it is expensive. We complain about all the money in politics, and all the donations. When you have a six-month primary system done on such a local-local level, it is bound to get very pricey.

(This issue of money and elections is a whole post unto itself.)

Presidential Election

The Electoral College needs major reformation or to be junked completely. My belief is to ditch the bitch -- get rid of it. It is an anachronism, developed (in my opinion) for arrogant and snobby reasons. The presidency is the only political office in the country that is elected by the entire country, and the current bizarre system allocates votes based on a lopsided and unfair weighting system. This is an electoral system that puts the states (or federalism) above the people (or populism). Votes in Alaska count much more than votes in California. It is a ridiculous and dispiriting procedure. And it is expensive. It is not one man, one vote, and it seems to me to be more Soviet-style than democratic.

We should have a national election where the winner is determined by a plurality of the popular vote, period. Sure, the "get to know the candidate" in more remote places will go away, but to my mind that is a small tradeoff for having every person count the same. Besides, with social media and invasive cable, every candidate is everywhere, everyday. Hand-to-hand campaigning would still be necessary, as would local stops. Right now a Republican would barely venture into New England or New York, a Democrat avoids the places like Kansas or Idaho -- that all would change. The Republicans in Massachusetts would have to be courted, just as the Democrats in Utah would have to be. Diehards would hate this, but too bad -- who cares what the diehard traditionalists think? The upside of this change far outweighs the downside, since the current system is ALL downside.

There is really no valid reason to keep the Electoral College other than tradition and the excuse that James Madison knew more than we did. Sure people will say it protects states' rights, minorities, and the two-party system. Protecting the two-party system is the last thing we should want. But is the presidency about the federal system or about representing the people of the nation?

Three times -- in 1876, 1888, and 2000 -- the candidate with the most popular votes lost to someone with more electoral votes. That is clearly not the will of the people but rather the will of the states. Why should someone in Wyoming have more say that someone in Oregon? The Declaration of Independence should be re-written to start "we the states" rather than "we the people" if that is what we really want from the presidency.

More importantly, we all know first-hand what happens when someone ignores the will of the people -- you get the idiocy of the self-anointed and power-hungry King George (yes we could have dumped him in '04, but if logic prevailed he should not have even been there for dumping). Plus, a little-revealed fact, the current Electoral College setup basically allows the electors to vote for whomever they want to. They do not have to vote for the candidate chosen by their state. While 24 states have laws to punish this, only ONE (Michigan) has the power to actually cancel that "faithless" vote. So in some surreal setting, a candidate could win the popular vote and the electoral vote and still not be elected president. Unlikely, but theoretically possible. This is not democracy, it is lunacy. To me, almost anything is better than the current Electoral College.

I go back and forth as to what would be best with regard to term limits for the president. As currently -- two four-year terms? One six-year term? No limit? I am not sure, but I lean towards one six-year term.

And oh, the Supreme Court cannot stop recounts, and if a justice fails to disclose his wife's income he is automatically impeached.

Congress

The District of Columbia either becomes or is treated just like a state for national political purposes. Zero discussion on this. The fact D.C. residents have no Congressional representation is ludicrous. They're held hostage by the Republicans since over 80 percent of all voters in D.C. are Democrats.

The House of Representatives continues to be population-based. I don't know what the magical number of reps should be, but for argument's sake I would up the number to 565, which is taking the U.S. population of 309,000,000 in 2010 and dividing it by the population of the smallest state (Wyoming at 545,000). Of course, you wouldn't want to change the number of reps every year or even every ten. Just keep it at the base of 565. Frankly, the larger number, the more unmanageable an already unmanageable body would become. Under this algorithm, New York would have 34 reps, while Colorado would have nine.

There should be no gerrymandering of districts -- districts should ONLY be reassigned if the state gains/loses a House seat every ten years after the Census. Districts should be redrawn by bipartisan committee, with strict guidelines, not by state legislatures (no weird shapes to get in certain groups, minorities, or parties in certain districts). You cannot keep all politics out of districting, but it can and should be limited.

Reps should be required to be present for a certain number or percentage of votes or else are admonished, fined, or kicked out. Terms should be increased to three years (these two-year terms practically require reps to start campaigning the day the are elected). One-third (188) could be elected every year, keeping a rotation.

The Senate should be adjusted for some population-based figures. Having two senators from Alaska and two from California is plain stupid and unfair. I propose the top 17 states get three senators, the next 17 get two senators, and the bottom 17 (remember D.C. is added) get one senator. 102 senators, voted by their full state. In addition, three senators are elected by the entire country, essentially stateless senators, for a total of 105. The party with the most senators is in charge. Six-year terms remain, with 1/3 up for election every two years. Same deal on the minimum number of votes as for the House. NO FILIBUSTERS unless the senator actually does his best James Stewart.

If you think that basing both Houses on some sort of population count will really tilt the Congress towards the big states too much, then let's go with the Senate remaining with two senators from each state (102 including D.C.), plus three at-large senators elected either regionally or nationally. These senators would not answer to any one state. Total: 105 senators. There is nothing magic about 100 senators other than the round sounding of the total. Before 1959, there were 96 Senators.

Both bodies should be required to remain in session a minimum of 230 days/year. NO DISCUSSION. This is not a country club. That still leaves six weeks vacation for all Congressmen and plenty of time for Boehner to play golf.

Supreme Court

For this body I have absolutely no issues with term limits -- there should be. These are not elected officials answering to the people, they are appointed, and appointed with politics squarely in mind.

Nine justices, 18-year term limit. Every two years one justice steps down as his/her term expires. This way every president would get to nominate at least two justices (resignation and death would cause an immediate refill of the seat, regardless of the term order, and the appointee would fill the remaining term). The president continues to nominate and the Senate continues approval. This way you would not be stuck with a Scalia or Thomas for a lifetime. The politics of the Supreme Court could change every two years depending on the rotation and the president. In today's court you can predict the vote on every case almost to a tee. There should be strict ethics and guidelines for justices with respect to politics and even the appearance of impropriety. No lunches with the Koch boys.

Chime in. Am I that out to lunch?

Craziest Republican of the Day: Lee Bright

By Michael J.W. Stickings

South Carolina's Republican secessionist flag

Republicans really seem to miss the Confederacy. And they certainly seem to hate America. For yet another example of secessionist, anti-Washington thinking, let's head down to South Carolina, one of the craziest states in the union:

Continuing a pattern of attempts to assert South Carolina's independence from the federal government, State Sen. Lee Bright, R-Roebuck, has introduced legislation that backs the creation of a new state currency that could protect the financial stability of the Palmetto State in the event of a breakdown of the Federal Reserve System.

*****

"If there is an attempt to monetize the Fed we ought to at least have a study on record that could protect South Carolinians," Bright said in an interview Friday.

"If folks lose faith in the dollar, we need to have some kind of backup."

The legislation cites the rights reserved to states in the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings in making the case that South Carolina is within its rights to create its own currency.

Um... really? I'm hardly an expert on constitutional law, but Article I, Section 10 states no state shall "coin Money" or "emit Bills of Credit," which is to say, no state may have its own currency. Yes, a state may allow "gold and silver Coin" to be "a Tender in Payment of Debts," but as Madison explained in Federalist 44, "it may be observed that the same reasons which shew the necessity of denying to the States the power of regulating coin, prove with equal force that they ought not to be at liberty to substitute a paper medium in the place of coin. Had every State a right to regulate the value of its coin, there might be as many different currencies as States; and thus the intercourse among them would be impeded." That's pretty clear, it seems to me.

Now, Bright wants South Carolina's currency to be "gold or silver, or both," according to the legislation. His target is the federal reserve system, which is to say, the federal government (which is explicitly authorized by the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) to "coin Money" and "regulate the Value thereof," and one suspects that the Founding Fathers would not be amused.

But we're not there yet. "Bright's joint resolution calls for the creation of an eight-member joint subcommittee to study the proposal and submit a report to the General Assembly by Nov. 1."

As Phil Bailey, the director of the state Senate Democratic Caucus, quipped, "[i]t's a waste of time; it's a waste of resources. I mean who's paying for this study? Will they be paid in actual dollars or gold doubloons?"

Good question.

Bill Maher to the Teabaggers: "The Founding Fathers would have hated your guts."

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm generally not much of a Bill Maher fan, even if I agree with more often than not, but I think he's quite right about this. The Founding Fathers would have hated the Teabaggers, and vice versa.

Mustang Bobby posted the clip at his place yesterday. Here it is for your edifying amusement -- the part about the Teabaggers starts at 2:51, but it's all pretty good: