Archive for: September 2007

That is the word now that Congressman Everett is not running for re-election.

“In February, I will celebrate my 71st birthday,” Everett said in a written statement released this morning. “While there remains much work to be accomplished by Congress, I made a difficult decision over the weekend not to seek election for a ninth term. The decision was difficult because of my love for the people of my district, and my love for the work I do on my three committees. It had been my intention until last week to seek re-election, including a run for the Chair or Ranking on the Committee on Agriculture. However, there is a season for all things and it is time for me to enter the next phase of my life, and pass the mantle to the next generation.”

So who are the list of potential candidates to replace Everett that have popped up so far?

Republicans

• Jay Love
• Barry Mask
• Harri Anne Smith
• Benjamin Lewis
• Troy King
• George Wallace, Jr.

Democrats

• Bobby Bright

I definitely see Harri Anne Smith getting into the race and possibly even Wallace. I think Troy King might have his sites set on the Governor’s race in 2010 - but who knows.

Yeah, life is way too hectic right now.

For future reference: if you ever find yourself as a senior electrical engineering student, don’t take 17 semester hours.

There’s a new poll out from SurveyUSA asking Alabama voters who they prefer for President in several possible head-to-head scenarios.

Rudy Giuliani seems to be doing well. The survey indicates that he could beat John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton with comfortable margins. Only Fred Thompson has better numbers against “any Democrat.” Mitt Romney does much worse, only barely beating out Clinton and even losing to John Edwards by six points. Apparently Alabama will simply not vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Surprisingly, and I know this isn’t news, John Edwards seems to be the only Democrat with a chance at actually claiming Alabama’s nine electoral votes. I find that very interesting. Of all the “major” Democratic contenders, I think John Edwards is the most liberal, which is a dirty word in Alabama. Yet this preliminary survey shows him to be much more competitive against popular Republicans. It even says he can beat Mitt Romney. Maybe it’s a Mormon thing.

US Representative Artur Davis and Governor Bob Riley chat via telephone:

Riley said he assured Davis that his public comments calling for an end to two-year college employees working in other political offices “was not directed at him personally or any one individual.” He said he told Davis it shouldn’t happen in the governor’s office or any other office, unless it’s for a limited period of time for a specific project.

This was in response to a letter from Davis to Riley that criticized some of Riley’s comments about the two-year system paying the salary of one of Davis’ staffers.

Phillip Rawls’ AP article about the Troy King controversy gives a good overview. Rawls seems to always have the best pieces out about these things. He also has a quote from Alabama Republican Party chairman Mike Hubbard, who I haven’t heard from on this:

Republican Party Chairman Mike Hubbard said King and Owens “are simply working through an honest debate on a valid policy issue,” and it has not turned into a mean-spirited personal attack.

I don’t know what he’s been watching. There’s also a video of the press conference here. This is from the victim’s son:

Never did I think think, ever, that a District Attorney, a guy that reprsented us, would turn his back on us, turn his back on the victims, on the people of Shelby County and the state of Alabama and side with the murderer. […]

Troy King has kept his promise to my mother that he would fight this to the bitter end. Troy is doing nothing but seeking justice and representing the people and the victims.

I don’t want to speculate too much and make the John Tyson mistake, but that seems more supportive of Troy King than it does of Troy King’s actions in the case.

Taylor Hicks and Rueben Studdard are independently planning nightclubs at Birmingham’s proposed entertainment district downtown. The district will be located near the BJCC.

Artur Davis doesn’t understand why it’s such a big deal. One member of his congressional staff, Gina Bailey McKell, was paid $76,883 from Southern Community College for her congressional work. She was also being paid $1,000 a month by the Artur Davis campaign for fundraising work. In a letter to Governor Riley, Davis argues:

“You apparently mean to suggest that there is something uniquely questionable about the junior college system’s loaning of a staffer,” Davis wrote in his letter to Riley. “I would remind you that not until 2006, after Gina McKell left my office, did a cloud begin to emerge around the system.”

What Davis fails to understand is that it’s not the appearance of impropriety that is a problem here. Why would Southern Community College in Monroeville “loan” a staffer to the Congressional office? Her job did not bring any direct benefit to the college. Also, Davis is already allocated 18 paid staffers paid for by federal funds, so the loan doesn’t appear necessary.

McKell also worked for former Governor Don Siegelman. Instead of being paid by some gubernatorial appropriation for staff, she was paid $73,000 by Jefferson State Community College. Four months after Siegelman lost his re-election, she left.

Why are local community colleges in Alabama paying for politicians’ staff? This is especially curious when you consider that both of these politicians have a pretty sizable amount of appropriations set aside for paid staff.

Davis is partially correct when he assumes that this appears to be yet another two-year college scandal in Alabama. It appears that some powerful Democrats, who have lately been seen to have controlled the two-year system, were helping one of their own. McKell is active in Democratic politics, which isn’t improper or damning by itself but which nonetheless makes it appear as if something improper was going on. McKell was paid by a corrupt two-year system that is controlled by Democrats while working for two Democrats.

That’s only one part of the equation, however. For now, it’s odd enough that Artur Davis has a staffer who is employed by playing some sort of game with state and federal financing. Whether her position was funded by community college tuition, state, or local taxes, it’s clear that there was no provision in law for her to be paid for congressional work. But who needs the law to appropriate a public staff salary, right? Federal appropriations would only give him 18 staff members (perish the thought), after all. Somebody had to pay for his 19th staffer.

A US House committee just signed off on legislation that requires manufactured home builders to install weather radios on all new homes. This is the apparently the country we live in. Spencer Bachus was a big supporter.

Troy King will be holding a press conference today at 2:00pm to respond to the District Attorneys Association. According the the press release, members of the victim’s family will be joining him.

I’m starting to notice a pattern here.

Fairfield finally changed the name of Richard M. Scrushy Parkway. It’s now Lloyd Noland Parkway. I don’t know who Lloyd Noland is, so it’s a step up. My wife and I snickered every time we passed the Richard Scrushy Parkway sign when coming up to Birmingham.

The United Auto Workers and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers are really trying to get some of the auto plants in Alabama to unionize. I see a billboard like this on my way to Birmingham:

I’ve got to be honest with you. I don’t think they (the union) accomplish either of those things.

I actually just now got around to actually reading the statement from the Alabama District Attorney Association about Troy King’s actions towards Shelby County District Attorney Robbie Owens (I’ve been busy). The most interesting part (see paragraph 6 of the statement) was recently brought up by Danny on Doc’s Political Parlor:

A point in favor of the District Attorneys’ assertion that there is something less-than-professional about King’s public statements is that the particular capital case in question is on appeal and so prosecution would be moved to Troy King’s office anyway. Seeing that his office would handle the case anyway, why the need to announce that he was taking the case away from Robbie Owens unless there was intent to publicly disparage Owens?

My guess: Because there was intent to publicly disparage Owens.

I slacked off for a little while, but I finally updated Troy King’s Greatest Hits to include Anthony Castaldo’s allegations regarding Judge Dan King as well as King’s takeover of the LaSamuel Gamble case. I also fixed several spelling errors and re-worded one of the bullets.

If there’s anything else you think I should include, please let me know in email or comments.

Alabama Attorney General Troy King is getting slammed for his interference in the death penalty case of LaSamuel Gamble. The day after King took the case away from District Attorney Robbie Owens, the Shelby County DA reported receiving several phone calls of support saying he did the right thing.

Owens suggested to a judge that Gamble should be re-sentenced because his accomplice in the murders, the one who actually pulled the trigger, was recently taken off death row because he was 16 when the men committed the murder. The US Supreme Court in their 2005 Roper decision determined such an execution was unconstitutional. King took the case away from the district attorney, vowing to appeal the decision and fight to execute Gamble.

On Friday, King’s 2006 opponent in the election for attorney general, Mobile District Attorney John Tyson, made a statement.

I told everybody that I could that (King) was dangerous for what he didn’t know, and I think we’re learning he is dangerous because he will do things like this.

The Birmingham News on Sunday issued a pretty strong indictment on King in an editorial:

Attorney General Troy King is playing politics and payback with a Shelby County murder case.

Attorney General Troy King should be ashamed of himself. But that would assume he has any shame. He apparently doesn’t.

The News also brought the fact that the judge, when ordering a new sentencing hearing, cited King’s own friend of the court brief in the Roper case. King brought up this very case as an example of the unfairness that would result if juvenile offenders escaped the death penalty:

Under that line, Gamble - who was 18 at the time but did not actually kill anyone - would face the death penalty, but Presley - who at 16 executed two people with startling coolness - would get a free pass. Surely the Eighth Amendment does not, as a matter of constitutional principle, mandate such a bizarre result.

Yesterday, the Alabama District Attorneys Association followed up on a previous statement where they defended Robbie Owens. This one was much more to the point.

The Attorney General, whatever his motivations in choosing to disparage the good name and character of Robby Owens, should apologize to his learned colleague and learn something from him about making hard decisions and effective public service. If he cannot recognize the error of his needless attack on the District Attorney, perhaps he should consider his fitness for the position he now holds. [emphasis added]

Ouch. By the way, King’s actions here have nothing to do with the fact that Robbie Owens, a Republican from Shelby County, endorsed King’s opponent, Mobile District Attorney John Tyson, in 2006. It also has nothing to do with the fact that King is getting a lot of negative press lately from Anthony Castaldo’s allegations of political prosecution. Of course not.

Just something to add to the list.

• H/T Birmingham Blues
• H/T Doc’s Political Parlor

Instead of being original, I’m going to re-post this piece I did last year entitled “A Worthless Document” in honor of Constitution Day. I do this because I’m lazy and because I think I did a pretty good job back then.

——————————————————

The United States Constitution. It has to be the most unused yet theoretically active legal document in history. This is going to be a long post, but I think it’s time I aired my grievances to the people of this country.

I want you to take just a moment to lay your political ideology aside. Liberal, moderate, conservative — it doesn’t matter. Everyone claims that the Constitution is the greatest thing in the world, and they all claim to be protecting it. So for a moment, I don’t want you to think about how “nice” it would be to have a national minimum wage. I don’t want you to think how “necessary” it is for the President to have the power to wiretap anyone he chooses. I just want you to think in terms of government powers and citizen rights, as layed out in our founding document.

Now that the Democrats have both houses of Congress, they are expected to introduce a bill that will increase the minimum wage for the first time since 1997 [9/17/07 — Done]. The country is on their side with an overwhelming majority of Americans supporting an increase. The curious part of the whole thing is that the Constitution does not seem to allow Congress to create such a regulation. I’ve read the whole thing — many times. It’s not that long, and you can buy a cheap copy from the Cato Institute. After reading it, I have to conclude that there’s simply nothing there that grants the federal government the power to create a minimum wage.

And here’s the kicker. If it’s not there, the government can’t do it. The Constitution is very clear to this point. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution begins, “The Congress shall have power to…” It then lists very specific powers the Congress has. Some additional powers are granted throughout the rest of the document and in the Amendments. If that wasn’t clear enough, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reads,

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Every single law passed by the Congress must be in accordance with a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Anything else, such as a minimum wage law, can only be addressed by the states. This enumeration of government powers is in stark contrast to the enumeration of rights, most noteably the Bill of Rights and the expansion of the scope of the Bill of Rights created by parts of the Fourteenth Amendment. While the Constitution must list everything the government is allowed to do, it does not list every right that the people hold. The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution makes this clear,

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, if there is a right or two that doesn’t seem to be listed in the Constitution, assume that you have it. What about the right to procreate? It’s not listed, but you have it. In fact, it would probably be impossible to have an exhaustive list of all rights. Luckily, we live in a free country, as expressed in the Ninth Amendment. You have all of your rights. The only thing the federal government can do is what the Constitution says it can do. The people, on the other hand, need not have their rights listed.

This form of government we live in, a constitutional republic where all government powers must be listed, is everything the Founding Fathers tried to create. However, in the name of “better,” these limitations on government have eroded slowly, mostly during this century. In 1933, Congress passed the National Industrial Recovery Act. Among other things, it established a minimum wage. That was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (295 U.S. 495, 1935). In that case, the government argued unsuccessfully that the Constitutional power to regulate commerce between the states (the interstate commerce clause) meant that they could create a minimum wage. They also urged the court to consider that the nation was in crisis (The Great Depression) and that this minimum wage was essential. In response to that admittably compelling argument, the court responded:

Extraordinary conditions may call for extraordinary remedies. But the argument necessarily stops short of an attempt to justify action which lies outside the sphere of constitutional authority. Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power.

Unfortunately, and due to some strong political threats by President Roosevelt, the Supreme Court later reversed their opinion on the limitation of the interstate commerce clause. Since then, of course, numerous laws have been enacted under the authority of Congress to “regulate commerce between the states.” Do you remember the recent church arsons? They were arrested under federal charges. The Constitution does not grant the federal government authority to make arson illegal, but there are arson crimes on the federal books. To justify the arrests, the kids were charged with arson that affected interstate commerce because the pastor of one of the churchs bought some printed materials from out of state.

Many federal laws that touch us are justified under the unbelievably expansive authority for Congress to “regulate commerce between the states.” Almost all of the enviromental laws, laws regarding endangered species, drug laws, and labor codes are great examples. I’m not saying the clause has no effect. Some things naturally stem from from this authority, and I can reluctantly agree that some laws are “close enough” to fall under this authority. Federal highway regulations, for example, are “close enough” to interstate commmerce to fall under this authority. In Daniel v. Paul (395 U.S. 298, 1965), however, the Supreme Court held that the government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of four of the items sold at its snack bar were purchased from a vendor located outside the state. In Gonzales v. Raich (000 U.S. 03-1454, 2005), the court held that the interstate commerce clause justified regulation of marijuana by the federal government, even though the marijuana in question was grown and consumed within a single state and had never entered any commerce outside of the state.

I’m picking on the interstate commerce clause because it’s the most historically abused part of the Constitution. My liberal friends are probably crying right now about how badly we need a minimum wage and how badly we need environmental regulations. This may be true, but these actions have cheapened the Constitution. Are you surprised that President Bush is able to make a reasonable case that the Constitution grants him the authority to wiretap American citizens without a warrant? If the single phrase granting Congress the authority to “regulate commerce between the states” can be so expansivley defined to render pointless the entirity of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, why are you so surprised that the single phrase, “The President shall be the commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,” can be applied to mean he can render pointless the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution? Why are you so surprised that he can twist this statement to mean he has the authority to overrule ratified international treaty with regard to torture?

This isn’t the only instance where the conservatives have cheapened the Constitution. It’s just the most unbelievable. As I write this, though, the Supreme Court is considering another expansion of the interstate commerce clause on behalf of conservative America — the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 [9/17/2007 – they approved it]..

If a minimum wage is so needed, then let the states create it. If we really need national enviromental regulations, then pass a Constitutional Amendment. You’re allowed to do that, you know. But by expanding the authority granted by such a small portion of the document, you are allowing the government authority to expand other parts as well. Through this process, the Constitution has become a mostly worthless document. The only parts that were still operative by the end of the last century were the basic framework of the government and most of the Bill of Rights (not including Amendments 2, 9, and 10). The Reagan administration had already begun working on the Twenty-Fifth Amendment after Reagan was shot in 1981. During this century, the Bush administration has seen only modest resistance in their efforts to circumvent the remaining Bill of Rights.

I’m almost to the point where I say we should let it die. Even if we are able to prevent Bush from taking away the remaining Bill of Rights, there are no political players I am aware of who is seeking to restore the lost portions of the document. There is no one viable person or group who is calling for the immediate suppression of Presidential power and the interstate commerce clause. The Constitution has become nothing but a cheap piece of paper whose words are selectively used by the fascists and socialists of this country to promote their agenda. Perhaps it’s time to let it die an dignified death.

[9/17/2007 — There is one]

I’d like to take a moment to respond to Dan’s previous post:

Inanity? I don’t know what that word means, sir, but I’m pretty sure I find it insulting! Check the facts: you have not heard of scandal one coming out of my office. I’m standing by my campaign promises…namely, the promise that all of my misdeeds would be so well covered-up you’d never have to read about them.

Anyway, I’m getting off track. I’d like to take this opportunity to say that I, too, support Fred Thompson for the following reasons:

1. He’s a man of the people. Fred Thompson is a people. He’s around other people on a near-daily basis. He’s people-riffic.

2. He’s down to earth. FACT: Fred Thompson is incapable of flight.

3. He’s just what this country needs. President Bush has reached his term limit. We need a new guy. Fred Thompson is a new guy. Do you need me to draw you a picture?

Fred Thompson: A Regular Joe You Recognize Because of his Television Stardom.

As much as I respect and appreciate Representative Mike Ball of Madison for his legislative record and for contributing to this blog, I rolled my eyes big time when I read his statement about Fred Thompson in the Montgomery Advertiser:

“He seems to be in touch with common folks. He’s down to earth,” said Rep. Mike Ball, R-Huntsville, who had been Madison County chairman for McCain.

Ball recently signed up as a delegate for Thompson. Then there was this gem of inspiration from Senator Jabo Waggoner of Vestavia Hills:

He represents the Alabama philosophy more than any other candidate.

Apparently “Alabama philosophy” is pro-family, pro-business, pro-life and anti-higher taxes, which is in itself inane. This one is general and I haven’t heard anyone say it first-hand:

Fred Thompson is a good old boy with conservative values.

What the hell does any of this mean? He’s a down-to-earth, good old boy who likes families, wants businesses to do well and thinks taxes shouldn’t be raised. Well sign me up! I haven’t heard such inanity since John Q. McWhitey announced his candidacy for Inconsequential State Office That Should Be Appointed Anyway, Place 12. It’s very similar to Presidential candidate Barack Obama’s grassroots supportive statements like:

Barack Obama is the future of this nation. I relate to him more than any other candidate.

End of story. No explanation. I know both of these guys come across as charismatic, but by what criteria are you people juding Presidential candidates? He’s the future? What the hell does that mean? He’s pro-family? Who isn’t? He’s a good old boy conservative? So was Jed Clampett.

The most ridiculous statement I’ve heard yet though was courtesy of an NPR piece while I was riding home one day. They were interviewing black Democratic voters and asking them if they were leaning toward Obama or Hillary. The response from one voter (who later showed herself to be either clueless or superficial about every issue she was asked about in my opinion):

Obama or Clinton? I don’t know. It’s like choosing between mommy and daddy.

When asked what she meant, she went in circles, repeating the same slogan over and over to avoid any explanation of why either candidate deserved her vote.

In a republic, the people are awarded the government they deserve. It’s a pity sometimes.

Jill Simpson, a Republican attorney who earlier signed an affidavit alleging selective prosecution of Don Siegelman, was interviewed by Congressional staff Friday. Unfortunately, it was apparently performed by staff instead of members and transcripts of the interview are not available. It is unclear what was said or whether a transcript will be made at a later date.

I say unfortunately, but hopefully the lack of C-SPAN coverage and elected officials undermined any attempts at political grandstanding that usually occurs at these things. For an example of what I’m talking about, you can see this video of US Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) wasting 7 minutes, 39 seconds and 1282 words to ask one barely coherent question of General Patraeus. Don’t worry, though. If members of the Judiciary Committee find the results of the interview juicy enough, they’ll be sure to invite her back so they can give sound bites in the form of questions.