From The Economist, January 2024. Read the text and see the rest at this link.
Top Stories
Saturday, January 20, 2024
Even Trump has due process rights, which Colorado Supreme Court put aside
at Christian Brothers University, Guest Columnist, The Tennessean, Dec. 25, 2023- Undoubtedly, most have heard that Colorado’s Supreme Court, in epoch-making case Anderson v. Griswold, barred former president Trump from appearing on the ballot in 2024.
Michigan’s Supreme Court also scrutinized Trump’s ballot dispute but diverged dramatically from Colorado’s ruling.
On what grounds was Trump barred in Colorado? Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment succinctly proffers, “(n)o person shall…hold any office…who…previously taken an oath…as an officer of the United States…to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same”.
There’s a lot going on in the Fourteenth Amendment that requires nuanced dissection. A myriad of legal questions arises in Trump’s case, some of which the Colorado Court grapples, some they unceremoniously shelve; a few such matters include First Amendment rights as well as state versus federal sovereignty. These are certainly important inquiries, however, most poignant is the failure of the Colorado Court to adequately determine due process. ....
... Colorado did not hold a jury trial to determine if Trump was an insurrectionist, nor provide the evidence to be used against him. Colorado did not adhere to stringent rules of evidence or procedures. And the burden of proof used against Trump was not beyond a reasonable doubt. Rules matter. Due process matters.(continue reading)
Top Stories
Tennessee and Ten other States urge Supreme Court to overrule Colorado in Trump ballot case
“This has the potential to tear our nation apart if left unchecked,” Missouri Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft said in a statement.
Ashcroft led a group of 11 state election officials in submitting an amicus or “friend of the court” brief “in support of neither party,” according to the document.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case involving Trump’s removal from the March Colorado Republican presidential primary ballot in a ruling by the state supreme court. The Colorado court ruled Trump could be removed under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
However, the court allowed his name to appear on the March ballot if the case was taken up by the nation’s highest court. If the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the state ruling, no votes for Trump would be counted, according to the Colorado Secretary of State.
Ashcroft’s coalition argues in a 26-page document the U.S. Constitution doesn’t empower a state official to disqualify candidates for federal office. The brief also states historical precedent doesn’t give secretaries of state any power to disqualify a candidate under the Constitution.
However, if the U.S. Supreme Court rules Section 3 to be applicable, the brief urges the court to avoid a ruling that could allow a secretary of state to disqualify a candidate.
“While other parts of the Constitution impose affirmative obligations on the states, those provisions are rote and divorced from the messy – and inherently political – question whether the insurrection clause should bar a candidate from office,” the brief states. “Thus, a state’s exercise of any disqualification power pursuant to those provisions – like, for example, disqualification based on a candidate’s ineligibility due to age – is a poor foil for a disqualification decision made under the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Secretaries of state from Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia joined Ashcroft, who’s running for the Republican nomination for governor in August.
“I appreciate the tenacity of so many other secretaries who also believe in good government, who believe in letting the people decide who should be on the ballot,” Ashcroft said. “When one person has the authority to arbitrarily remove a candidate from the list – our republic is in trouble. Having such autonomy would set a dangerous precedent for which a deeply divided nation may never recover.”
Top Stories
Women and Pregnant People
This statement I came across while reading an article in the current issue of The Atlantic. I had to stop and reread it. It is beyond my comprehension that people can actually think like this. This sounds like a right-winger's caricature of a liberal; but no, it is real.
Mind you, The Atlantic is a moderate liberal common-sense publication for the most part. It has a lot of good journalism and good analysis. The Atlantic is not Mother Jones, it is not even The New Republic. It is in the mainstream, just to the left of the middle of the political spectrum. It is a respected publication. Yet, that is the way liberals think. After a statement like that it is hard to take seriously anything else the author says. When the publication has an article by a staff writer who says "women and pregnant people," with a straight face, it makes me question the whole publication. Can I take seriously anything published in The Atlantic?
I am not going to only get my news from Fox and One Nation News Network or Newsmax. I am not going to retreat to the right-wing silo. The right has crazy conspiracy theorist like Tucker Carlson and proliferation of other equally nutty Trump cultist spouting all sorts of asinine non-sense. Yet, despite all of that, they do not think anyone but a women can get pregnant.
Liberals are mystified as to the rise of Trump and the polarization in our country. There are lots of reasons for Trump and the political tribalism we witness. Volumes could be written on what people believe and why that puts them in one camp or the other. Hell will freeze over before I ever vote for Donald Trump, but I am not that mystified as to the political divide in our country. There are people who believe women and other people can get pregnant, and people who believe only women can get pregnant.
Top Stories
Thursday, January 18, 2024
Wednesday, January 17, 2024
Tuesday, January 16, 2024
Trump's attack on Nikki Haley and Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Prosperity has helped elect a large number of conservatives to Congress and it has advocated for conservative causes. To call AFP "RINO" is nuts.
RINO no longer means what it used to. By Trumpinista standards, Ronald Reagan was a RINO. Republican in Name Only, RINO, was a term applied to less conservative Republicans. Over time, the term became a name-calling device for anyone not in lock step with Rush Limbaugh or Shane Hannity or other loudmouth right-wing voices. It was a way to marginalize thoughtful people in the Republican Party and shut down thought and dialogue.
Still, the term had meaning. I could guess one's views if they were called "RINO." Now, "RINO" is a term for anyone who is not part of the Trump cult. I would contend that the Trumpinistas are the real RINO's. However, since the Trumpinistas have captured the Party, I guess they get to define the terms. Now, when someone is called a RINO, I think "normal Republican." There is a new term that normal Republicans are applying to themselves. It is "normie." I was beginning to embrace the term RINO to describe myself, but I like "normie" better, and it is more accurate.
As regards Trump's claim that AFP supports open borders that is simply a lie. Do you know how to tell if Trump is telling a lie? His lips are moving or his fingers are tweeting. To see AFP's position on immigration, follow this link.
A normal candidate after winning such an overwhelming victory in Iowa would have respectful words to say about his vanquished opponent, but Trump is not a normal candidate. A normal victor would think toward the general election and want his challengers' supporters to become his supporters. Trump, of course, is not a normal candidate.
Imagine that the Republican parents of a fist grader is told by a teacher that their child called another child "Birdbrain." I bet most of them would chastise their child and tell them it is not nice to call other people names. Of course, the child might say, "Well, Trump called Nikki Haley "Birdbrain." A grown man calling his smart, articulate, educated, accomplished opponent, who he appointed to an important position, "Birdbrain" is beyond the pale. A normal political leader would not do it'; but, of course, Trump is not normal. Somehow, people kind of like it. Of course, a lot of people like really crude name-calling comedy and in reality, a lot of people like bullies.
Crudeness, incivility, and impoliteness did not start with Donald Trump, but he has made it more normal. "Let it all hang out" and "tell it like it is," has been with us for a while. I always thought, however, that Republicans were more civil and well-mannered than Democrats. Republicans were less likely to do sit-ins, block doors, shout down speakers with whom that disagreed, and chant obscenities. Well, not anymore. Republicans can be just a nasty and crude and impolite as Democrats.
Society needs rules of procedure; society needs politeness. There is a reason Senators refer to their adversaries as "the honorable." There is a reason we have rules to conduct meetings. Manners are not phony; they are essential. If things are not done civilly, then the alternative is violence.
Top Stories
How the Homelessness Problem in Tennessee Compares to Other States
by Rod Williams, Jan. 16, 2023- On a single night in 2023, roughly 653,100 people, or about 20 of every 10,000 people in the United States, were experiencing homelessness. Six in ten people were experiencing sheltered homelessness, that is they were in a place like the Union Rescue Mission or some other homeless shelter. The other four in ten were experiencing unsheltered homelessness in places not meant for human habitation. They were living in cars, or homeless encampments or under interstate overpasses.
Homelessness increased nationwide. Between 2022 and 2023, the number of people experiencing homelessness increased by 12 percent, or roughly 70,650 more people. Tennessee fared well. Tennessee actually had a decrease in homelessness. This chart shows which states had increases in homelessness and which had decreases.
The map below shows the estimate of the number of homeless in each state:
For much more information on the status of homelessness in America, see The 2023 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress.
Top Stories
Senate joint committee members file report on federal K-12 education funding, disagreeing with House members
The Senate report highlighted the limited number of federal requirements surrounding that funding, the benefits of the funding and the uncertainties that would come from rejecting that funding while citing the work on the Sycamore Institute and the Tennessee Office of Research and Education Accountability.
“These are more questions than definitive answers about what rejecting federal K-12 dollars could mean for Tennessee's obligations because no state has ever done so,” the report said, words that first appeared in Sycamore Institute’s October report on the matter.
“If the legislature, for example, chooses to reject select federal education programs in the ESEA, there are a number of questions that would need to be resolved with the U.S. Department of Education. In particular, there are a number of uncertainties about the consequences of non-participation in Title I-A, where many of the most significant requirements of federal education law are contained.”
Chalkbeat reported that House Speaker Cameron Sexton said a House report was also coming on the topic while committee co-chair Jon Lundberg, R-Bristol, told the website he refused to make changes to the report that were requested by Sexton’s office.
“Frankly there are fewer federal strings than I anticipated,” Lundberg told Chalkbeat, something that school superintendents had highlighted for the committee.
The Senate report said that, on average, nearly 20% of funding that local K-12 districts receive come from federal funds. It estimated that rejecting federal funds would lead to a $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion increase in education funding costs to Tennessee.
“$1.1B is also more than any of the recurring increases to TDOE over the last decade and more than the budgets of all but about 4-5 state agencies (IDOE, TennCare, TOOT, THEC, and TDOC),” the report says.
Top Stories
Sunday, January 14, 2024
The real reason people are flocking to red states
The most frequently cited reason for this ongoing blue-to-red migration is taxes — or, more correctly, the opportunity to pay less and fewer of them. When American Enterprise Institute researcher Mark Perry compared the top ten states people were leaving in 2021 with the top ten they were moving to, the former had an average maximum income tax rate of 8 percent, while the places they were heading for had an average rate of just 3.8 percent. Even when it comes to gas taxes, drivers in red states pay significantly less than those on blue roads.
Job opportunity is also a strong red state lure. ... housing affordability is clearly a third reason why people are leaving blue jurisdictions. ... home ownership is now greater in red states, (Read more)
Top Stories
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
