State-Initiated Constitutional Amendment Process

Should we have a constitutional convention?

Short answer: NO! An open-ended rewrite of the Constitution permits few opportunities for improvement but has far to many opportunities for mischief and disimprovement.

As one commenter put it: “There is nothing wrong with our Constitution. The problem is with our politicians, and with the lazy citizenry who refuse to vote them out when they consistently violate that Constitution.”

However, the challenge of getting around the Congressional roadblock on Amendments that curtail the Congress (such as term limits) is a real one. So one very good idea did bubble up out of the discussion:

I would prefer to add a 3rd method of Amendment: If 3/4ths of the States pass an identical Resolution of Amendment within a fixed time window, then that Amendment is placed before the voters at the next Congressional election for ratification, majority vote.

This bypasses Congress when necessary, and strengthens the hand of the States with respect to the Federal Government.

I would propose the language thusly:

State-initiated Constitutional Amendment Process

When 3/4ths of the States have passed in their respective legislatures identical Resolutions of Amendment within the prior 7 year period, the proposed Amendment in that Resolution of Amendment shall be placed before the voters of all the States at the next Congressional election for their approval, in the form of a ballot referendum.

Such an Amendment shall be deemed to have passed the referendum under the condition where a majority of elector-equivalent votes are counted for the proposal, such elector-equivalent votes having been counted as follows: In each district or State where a number of electors are chosen for President, that number is used as the number of elector-equivalent votes. These elector-equivalent votes are considered for or against the Amendment referendum, depending on whether a majority of ballots cast by voters in that given district or State are for or against the proposed Amendment respectively.

Any such Amendment, having been approved through the above process, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution.

This itself is a Constitutional Amendment. Which means it needs to get through Congress.

Sotomayor and the forgotten Constitution

The nomination of Judge Sotomayor now moves to the Senate, where the Kabuki dance of the confirmation hearings is taking place this week. Senators make speeches with questions marks at the end, and the show-prepped self-described "wise Latina" will respond by saying as much nothing as possible.

Let me remind the good Senators on both sides what this confirmation should be about: The Constitution. Senators, Presidents, and Supreme Court Justices all take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. To uphold the Constitution must have some real significance, or it would not be core part of the oath of office. In monarchies and despotisms, fealty was to the King or leader, but in our Constitutional Republic, we expect fealty from public servants to the laws and the Constitution?

What should 'uphold the Constitution' mean to the Judges? Like a gothic arch that is architected to make the free space of a cathedral, the architecture of our Republican form of government and legal system is the structure to support our freed and civil society. It consists of a division of powers between branches of Government; it includes the concept of limited Government - that Government only has powers granted by the people to it; it includes Federalism, and our Bill of Rights. The foundation that underpins our political order and civil society is the concept that we are ruled as a nation of laws, not men. Presidents must execute the laws, and not merely what they wish; Judges must be bound to interpret the law as it is written, not as they would wish it. It is left to political bodies to make the laws. The Rule of Law and the Constitution can only be upheld if it has substance and a grounded certainty, and if Judges themselves share this understanding of the architecture of our Republic and abide by this Constitutional and legal scheme.

This is all good civics, but how does Obama's nomination play into this? The fact that it doesn't is the point. The Sotomayor nomination was partly an ideological pick ("empathy" as a code word for liberal judicial activist) and partly an identity politics pick (Obama had no white males in his 'shortlist' and wanted a minority on SCOTUS). Where in Obama's nomination was consideration given to the question: Does she adhere to the laws and the Constitution as they are written? Does she faithfully interpret the laws, without injecting personal bias or consideration?

We sadly know the answer. President Obama has made it his intent to only nominate Judges whose view of their role is inherently corrupted, defective and wrong. Sotomayor wants Judges to change laws not just interpret them. Sotomayor reached an unwise and unwarranted decision in Ricci, that the Supreme Court overruled. Here ruling was Prejudiced. She doesn't recognize Second Amendment Rights that are clearly written in the Consitution, and likewise appears hostile to freedom of political speech in campaigns.

In fact, Obama's fatal flaw is that he was and is specifically seeking out, via his 'empathy' standard, Judges who would bend the law to reach the 'right' conclusion. This view of the law has corrupted the bench, put courts on the path towards judicial activist overreach and even tyranny, and undermined the rule of law. It has also, in this era of "Borking", led to politicization of the judicial nomination process. The true primary role of Judges has been relegated by liberals who reject this view of the Judge's proper role, to an "ism" - "Originalism" and "judicial conservatism", and even the perverse view of calling it 'activism' if someone who upholds a traditional view of judges as interpreters of the laws tries to overturn bad judicial rulings not based on it.

Basic civics-level understanding of what Judges should and should not do is being ignored. Liberals since the time when FDR attempted to pack the Supreme Court in an act of political bullying, have seen the courts in a dangerous and new light - as an avenue for political advancement. In the hands of groups like the ACLU and gay activists, courts have made political decisions that elected bodies were unwilling to make; those actions invariably have coarsened politics and deprive Americans of both liberty and democratic choice.

The classic example of such Judicial activist overreach has been Roe v Wade, which used oxymoronic construct of 'substantive due process', misread the 14th amendment and Constitution, denied rights to unborn, and cast a shadow on abortion policy for a generation by trumping democratic local and state choice on matter. It's a decision so obviously wrongly reasoned that even legal expert liberals like Alan Dershowitz acknowledge the decision was flawed.

The Judges serve a role as watchdogs of the law and of due process. When Judges are asked to do two things, their primary mission suffers. A Judge cannot serve an ephemeral "empathy" standard that is code for liberal social policy and serve the law through interpretation at the same time. This is akin to asking the Federal reserve to keep sound money and low unemployment; juicing money to goose employment ends up watering down the value of money. Just as President Obama's economic policies that ask the Federal reserve to do too much are a threat to the soundness of the U.S. dollar, so too his approach to judicial nominations will lead to Judges who undermine the rule of law and the Constitution.

The currency of the Rule of Law weakens when Judges are asked to do too much. While Senator Cornyn asks many great questions, the one question that needs to be answered is: "Judges take an oath to uphold the laws and the Constitution. Will you keep your oath, above and beyond all other considerations, as your sole, primary, and unwavering objective?"

Returning to Constitutional Federal Government

A bill that requires Consitutional authority for Federal bills has been re-introduced in the House. Representative John Shadegg (R-AZ) has re-introduced in the House HR 450, the Enumerated Powers Act, which would compel lawmakers to cite specific constitutional authority for all bills. Redstate article notes:

It is one third of a great bill; what it needs is legislation throwing out the Supreme Court’s 1942 Wickard v. Filburn decision and language that more closely defines “general welfare” so the General Welfare clause in the Constitution can’t be tortured so gratuitously. ...
Randy E. Barnett proposes in the pages of the WSJ a Federalism Amendment that would do much of what I propose in the expanded Enumerated Powers Act.

Well worth keeping tabs on this.

BREAKING FREE FROM THE CONSTITUTION

By Bob Ward
Nov. 14, 2008 - There are any number of things to be concerned about in a Barack Obama administration but among the most serious is his attitude toward the judicial branch.
In a 2001 interview on National Public Radio, Obama discussed the Supreme Court’s role in the civil rights movement. While the court affirmed the basic civil rights of blacks, he recalled, it “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth.” The reason the court failed to redistribute wealth, according to Obama, was that, “It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”
While most Americans would consider it appropriate for a court to adhere to the Constitution, Obama sees it otherwise. The Constitution, he said, “reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day.” And that blind spot, he continued constitutes “the fundamental flaw of this country.
”During the Obama administration, our judges – at all levels from District Court to the U.S. Supreme Court – will be appointed by someone who believes it is their duty to “break free” from a flawed constitution.
Obama plainly believes courts should disregard the Constitution in order to redistribute wealth. It is unclear in what other areas he thinks the Constitution should be overruled. There is strong sentiment among Democratic leaders in the Congress to re-establish the “fairness doctrine” in broadcasting. The old fairness doctrine was abolished under Ronald Reagan and the result was the rise of talk radio. This medium, dominated by conservatives, is a raspberry seed in the molar of liberals. There have been attempts by liberals to emulate the success of conservative talk radio and they have all been dismal failures.
Under the fairness doctrine a radio station that aired Rush Limbaugh would be compelled to devote three hours to liberal talk that nobody would listen to. Stations would respond by changing their formats to less controversial programming.
The legal basis for this intrusion by government is the fiction that the “airwaves” belong to the public and the statutory requirement that stations licensed by the Federal Communication Commission operate “in the public interest.” These conditions do not apply to non-broadcast media which are protected from government interference by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
However, Obama believes the Constitution is flawed and courts should “break free” from it. It is notunreasonable to expect the Federal government, under Obama, to attempt to control other media. Most vulnerable is the Internet with its bloggers who operate without the editorial “gatekeepers” that keep the mainstream media in line and usually without the discipline of the marketplace as well.
And if the mainstream media become victims of Obama’s judicial philosophy, they have only themselves to blame. They gave this guy a pass overall, and specifically, this interview with National Public Radio should have gotten widespread coverage early in the campaign instead of turning up on a few conservatives venues just days before the election.
Churches are another area where the Constitution is on shaky ground. There are already constitutionally suspect limits on what pastors can say or do if they speak for their congregations on public issues while enjoying a tax exemption. Liberal pressure groups are constantly filing complaints with the IRS in an attempt to silence conservative clergy.
Under an Obama administration, such groups could succeed beyond their wildest dreamsand without the complication of involving the IRS. A pastor who spoke out against homosexuality, forexample, could be charged with a hate crime, as happens in Canada, and the U.S. Justice Dept. would deal with him.
Creative U.S. attorneys could find new ways to enforce the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law to silence critics during the critical weeks just before an election. And Federal judges who subscribe to the Obama view of the Constitution will uphold these prosecutions.
The First Amendment guarantees of free speech and religious freedom are not the only rights that canbe violated once our courts are populated by judges who consider it their duty to “break free” from a flawed constitution. Life, liberty and certainly property are at risk once Barak Obama begins to appoint judges and the Democratic controlled Senate starts confirming them.

Punch-Drunk Obama, The Constitution & Justice Ginsburg

Barack went after Palin with a 'lipstick on a pig', which is up there on the figurative incendiary scale. So it's ironic that Obama throws a bomb thrower in the mix:

We don’t always catch the right person. We may think this is Mohammed the terrorist, it might be Mohammed the cab driver. You may think it’s Barack the bomb thrower, but it might be Barack the guy running for president.

What if it's both? Obama's yelled out: "Don’t mock the Constitution! Don’t make fun of it!" to make the point that he really, really cares about the constitutional rights of suspected terrorists, and the Evil Republicans (TM) mocking his over-concern is really mocking the constitution. He's questioning their Constitutional Patriotism.

But who's the mocker here? Obama has signalled who he doesn't want on the Supreme Court by dissing the great Justice Clarence Thomas (see also WSJ online), and he has signalled that he wants Justices with empathy:

"We need somebody who’s got the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. ... In those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart." - Barack Obama

Obama's ideal? None other than Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Obama's favorite Jurist, the liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg, when not sleeping on the job, decided to mock the Constitution herself by:

• Ruling against our 2nd Amendment rights in her dissenting vote on Heller v DC
• Voting against the due process rights of property owners in the infamous Kelo decision
• Ruling to strike down a partial-birth abortion ban, dissenting from the court ruling that upheld the law and ignoring the rights of the unborn
  
• Ruling against equality of opportunity without regard to race and upholding racial preferences in Grutter

Not only is there a mockery of the Constitution from the liberal activist Ginsburg, but Obama's favorite Justice apparently has no empathy for gun owners, property owners, the unborn, and whites trying to get accepted to law school.

Obama can rap the Republicans for a different view of what the Constitution says, but McCain and his nominees will not mock our Constitution, they will rule on it and enforce it!

"I will look for accomplished men and women with a proven record of excellence in the law, and a proven commitment to judicial restraint. I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist -- jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain, Wake Forest University speech

Texas Cancer program & Proposition 15 - Not Needed

This is the total National Cancer Institute's Budget request for FY2008: $5,799,225 This budget is just one part of the huge budget of $30 billion for the National Institute for Health. Such huge Federal spending begs a simple question about state-level spending proposals: Why add more to it?

In a single year, the Federal Government will increase spending on cancer by $800 million, and spend more on cancer in one year than proposition 15 will spend in 10 years. It is a myth to suggest, as advocates have, that cancer spending is 'stagnant'; it's been growing. It's a myth too that the Texas incremental funding will change the pace of discovery and innovation in cancer research in any significant way. An incremental funding level of less than 5% of public and private research funding will only help in incremental way. This is not about curing cancer or not. This is about whether to saddle taxpayers at the state-level with state-directed research funding in a targetted area; and furthermore, about whether we should fund it with bonds and an endowment as opposed to other appropriations methods. Both aspects of this proposal are questionable.

Cancer is a worthwhile topic for research, but consider the bang for the buck factor: With the National Cancer Institute, over $5 billion a year is allocated and the cost to Texas taxpayers would equate (assuming Texas has 7% of Federal tax load) to about the $300 million commitment of proposition 15. Spending federal money gives a return on Texas cancer investment dollars 15 times greater than at state-level, since we are sharing the load across the U.S. If the goal is to accelerate curing cancer, incremental Federal funding would be a more equitable way to go. If the goal on the other hand is to keep research in Texas, one might well ask why not take a good slice of the $5 billion NCI funding instead. Prop 15 will cost a lot and deliver much less than what we get out of spending at NCI.

Furthermore, it is less likely that state-directed funding would focus on the best competitive research. Would a newly created state-level agency have the experience and expertise in targetting research as well as the NCI? No. The plan must be to keep the research in Texas, but would throwing money at a research center make it best-in-class? It should help upgrade research centers, but there is no guarantee this would happen.

Any problems over poor research would be limited if the $3 billion were appropriated yearly and subject to legislative oversight. But alas, that is the fatal flaw in this idea - it won't be. The funding will be on autopilot for 10 years. We are inviting a future scandal where we find out that the money was was mis-spent on inferior research. Once the votes say "aye", we are locked into a $3 billion 10-years commitment, even if the funding agency doesn't perform, even if the research opportunities to fund aren't up to par, even if we have buyer's remorse about focussing on cancer as opposed to other opportunities, even if the fiscal situation goes bad and we need to reprioritize state budgets.

These issues are compounded with the error of funding this program via bonds, which will add to costs via interest payments. So, instead of ongoing appropriations, we have an inflexible pig-in-a-poke that will lack the ability of oversight needed to keep the program efficient. For all these reasons - the excellent and well-funded Federal programs, the lack of accountability and oversight built into the proposal, and the inherent weakness in state-level directed research funding - the proposition 15 should be opposed. And it should be noted, whichever way the vote goes, it won't do anything to change our progress against cancer.

Sorry Lance, proposition 15 is not needed.

Guide to the 2007 Texas Constitutional Amendment election

Ballot language for the November constitutional amendment elections. Sources for information provided below includes info from about.com, Texas Insider's Fresh Ink, Rep Hochberg.

Proposition 1 - HJR 103: "The constitutional amendment providing for the continuation of the constitutional appropriation for facilities and other capital items at Angelo State University on a change in the governance of the university."

What it does: This amendment updates the constitution to reflect that Angelo State University, once a part of the Texas State University System, is now part of the Texas Tech University System. Technical change. Recommendation: YES.

Proposition 2 - SJR 57: "The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of $500 million in general obligation bonds to finance educational loans to students and authorizing bond enhancement agreements with respect to general obligation bonds issued for that purpose."

What it does: This amendment would allow the state to issue $500 million in bonds to finance education loans for college and university students. Authorizes debt-financed spending of money for a non-capital purpose, which is ill-advised. Recommendation: NO.

Proposition 3 - HJR 40: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide that the maximum appraised value of a residence homestead for ad valorem taxation is limited to the lesser of the most recent market value of the residence homestead as determined by the appraisal entity or 110 percent, or a greater percentage, of the appraised value of the residence homestead for the preceding tax year."

What it does: Clarifying that the appraised value of a homestead for property taxes cannot increase by more than 10% in any year, even if more than a year has passed since the home was last appraised. Technical change. Recommendation: YES.

Proposition 4 - SJR 65: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the issuance of up to $1 billion in bonds payable from the general revenues of the state for maintenance, improvement, repair, and construction projects and for the purchase of needed equipment."

What it does: This proposition would authorize the state to issue $1 billion in bonds for needed equipment and construction projects for state agencies including Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas Department of Public Safety, Texas Youth Commission, and Department of State Health Services. Authorizes debt-financed spending of money for a mixed capital and non-capital purpose. Recommendation: NO.

Proposition 5 - SJR 44: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit the voters of a municipality having a population of less than 10,000 to authorize the governing body of the municipality to enter into an agreement with an owner of real property in or adjacent to an area in the municipality that has been approved for funding under certain programs administered by the Texas Department of Agriculture under which the parties agree that all ad valorem taxes imposed on the owner's property may not be increased for the first five tax years after the tax year in which the agreement is entered into."

What it does: This amendment would authorize the Legislature to allow a city with a population under 10,000 to hold an election to freeze the property taxes for properties within or near areas designated for redevelopment under the Downtown Revitalization Program or the Main Street Improvements Program administered by the Texas Department of Agriculture. Since the actual language is quite specific, it begs the question of which if any specific town this was written for. Recommendation: YES.

Proposition 6 - HJR 54: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation one motor vehicle owned by an individual and used in the course of the owner's occupation or profession and also for personal activities of the owner."

What it does: This proposition would authorize the Legislature by general law to exempt from ad valorem taxation one car owned by an individual that was used in the individual’s occupation or profession and also used for personal activities that did not involve the production of income. Recommendation: YES.

Proposition 7 - HJR 30: "The constitutional amendment to allow governmental entities to sell property acquired through eminent domain back to the previous owners at the price the entities paid to acquire the property."

What it does: This amendment allows property that was sold to the government through eminent domain to be bought back by the seller at the original sales price if the government does not use the property. Technical change. Recommendation: YES.

Proposition 8 - HJR 72: "The constitutional amendment to clarify certain provisions relating to the making of a home equity loan and use of home equity loan proceeds."

What it does: This amendment adds clarification and more precise language to existing provisions for home equity loans. Among the changes are a provision for a second home equity loan on the same property sooner than one year after the first home equity loan in the event of a declared state of emergency, such as a natural disaster. Technical change. Recommendation: YES.

Proposition 9 - SJR 29: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to exempt all or part of the residence homesteads of certain totally disabled veterans from ad valorem taxation and authorizing a change in the manner of determining the amount of the existing exemption from ad valorem taxation to which a disabled veteran is entitled."

What it does: With this amendment, a disabled veteran with a service-connected disability with a disability rating of 100 percent or totally disabled may be exempted from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of their residence homestead. It also adds some clarifications regarding exemptions for disabled veterans with less than 100 percent disability. Technical change. Recommendation: YES.

Proposition 10 - HJR 69: "The constitutional amendment to abolish the constitutional authority for the office of inspector of hides and animals."

What it does: This amendment cleans up the wording of the constitution to remove references to the former office of Inspector of Hides and Animals. Technical change. Recommendation: YES.

Proposition 11 - HJR 19: "The constitutional amendment to require that a record vote be taken by a house of the legislature on final passage of any bill, other than certain local bills, of a resolution proposing or ratifying a constitutional amendment, or of any other nonceremonial resolution, and to provide for public access on the Internet to those record votes."

What it does: This proposition would require a vote taken in either house of the Legislature to be by record vote if the vote was on final passage of a bill or any other measure other than a resolution of a purely ceremonial or honorary nature. Open Government. Recommendation: YES.

Proposition 12 - SJR 64: "The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of general obligation bonds by the Texas Transportation Commission in an amount not to exceed $5 billion to provide funding for highway improvement projects."

What it does: Proceeds from the sale of bonds authorized by this amendment can be used to pay for authorized highway improvement projects, costs associated with issuing the bonds, and making payments on related credit agreements. Recommendation: NO. See op-ed.


Proposition 13 - HJR 6: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the denial of bail to a person who violates certain court orders or conditions of release in a felony or family violence case."

What it does: Allows judges to deny bail to defendents in family violence cases who violate certain conditions of their initial release on bail. Gives judges flexibility in denying bail. This was put forth after a domestic violence case where a man violated bail conditions and ended up killing his wife; while this could be abused, it would be hard to deny giving judge's discretion when needed to deny bail. Recommendation: YES.

Proposition 14 - HJR 36: "The constitutional amendment permitting a justice or judge who reaches the mandatory retirement age while in office to serve the remainder of the justice's or judge's current term."

What it does: This proposition would allow judges who had reached the mandatory age of retirement (75 years old) during their termo of office to finish their terms. If an elected state justice or judge reaches mandatory retirement age during the first four years of the 6 year term to which they were elected, the expiration of that term would be on December 31 of the fourth year of the term. This is being done for the sake of one State Judge who doesn't deserve to have his stay in office extended. Recommendation: NO.

Proposition 15 - HJR 90: "The constitutional amendment requiring the creation of the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas and authorizing the issuance of up to $3 billion in bonds payable from the general revenues of the state for research in Texas to find the causes of and cures for cancer."

What it does: This proposition would establish the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas and authorize the issuance of $3 million in bonds to fund research on all forms of human cancer. Recommendation: NO. See opinion.

Proposition 16 - SJR 20: "The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of additional general obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board in an amount not to exceed $250 million to provide assistance to economically distressed areas."

What it does: This authorizes the state to issue $250 million in bonds to help meet the water and wastewater infrastructure needs in economically distressed areas. Recommendation: No.

UPDATE: 10/23/07 - Updated Prop 14 and prop 16 to "No" after further review.

HANDS OFF TALK RADIO

HANDS OFF TALK RADIO
By Bob Ward

There’s been a lot of buzz lately about reviving the so-called Fairness Doctrine for broadcasting in response to conservative domination of talk radio.

Sen. Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican, complains that, “Talk radio is running America and we have to deal with that problem." Talk radio allows the people of America – those unrepresented by a trade association, a lobbying firm, an advocacy group, a labor union or other organization – to make their opinions public and to generate support for their positions.

We are entitled to ask why Trent Lott considers that “a problem” and who does he think should be running America if not the people. We would also be interested in knowing what he means by dealing with this so-called problem. Does he mean that lawmakers have to learn to live with and take into account talk radio, or does he mean to eliminate the “problem?”

Whatever Lott has in mind, there are politicians who would restore the Fairness Doctrine – repealed during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. If they succeed, it would put and end to talk radio. Radio stations would be subject to endless complaints and nitpicking from interests who feel their position has not been given fair treatment. This would allow the politicians to do whatever the special interests pay them to do without having to listen to a lot of guff from the riff-raff.

The Federal government must regulate those aspects of broadcasting that must be regulated for broadcasting to function. If two radio stations broadcast on the same frequency, neither would be heard and understood by listeners. Clearly, frequencies must be assigned and the assignment must be enforceable and that means government has to do it.

But this is strictly a technical issue and has nothing to do with the contents of a broadcast. Federal authority to regulate content rests on a lie – the claim that the “airwaves” belong to the public – “public” being a euphemism for the government. This is a weak peg on which to hang so much government power. And it raises two questions: 1. What is an “airwave,” and 2. How did the government come to “own” them.

The first is easy. There is no such thing as an “airwave.” What you hear when you turn on your radio is a signal generated by privately owned electronic equipment. It travels through a vacuum as well as through air. “Airwave” is a fiction. That signal is a form of radiant energy, like light. And, like light, nobody owns it.

The assertion that the “airwaves belong to the public” is a lame fiction and no basis for disregarding the First amendment to the Constitution.

Federal power over who can say what on the radio has also been based on language in the1927 statute conferring on the Federal communication Commission authority to license broadcasters to operate on specific frequencies. The rationale is that because the licensee is granted the exclusive right to use a particular frequency, the law requires that the station operate in the public interest.

Even this is an overreach. Who determines what programming is or isn’t in the public interest. How about the public? If we compare the public’s response to Rush Limbaugh to the public response to Air America it’s pretty clear where the public interest lies.

Vaporous phrases like “the public interest” and fictional entities like “airwaves” simply cannot stand against the hard language of the First Amendment. What part of “Congress shall make no law . . .” do these gentry not understand.

Federal Court Recognizes Second Amendment

Important Victory for Gun Rights: A Federal appeals court has struck down a DC gun ban as an unconstitutional violation of our Second Amendment rights. Gun control is not crime control, and it is good to see a Federal court actually recognize the Second Amendment's individual RKBA right. This recognition of the individual right to keep and bear arms will present a fundamental challenge to the gun-grabbers and could be a shot in the arm for the GOP if this ruling bring gun rights to the front-burner in 2008. The Supreme Court may weigh on this ruling on appeal in the next year.